DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (US 2020/0180587).
In Re claim 1, Lin discloses a brake wear monitoring system, comprising: a housing (caliper 54); a brake piston (80); and a sensor assembly (see figs. 5A and 5B) configured to produce a sensor signal indicative of an axial position of the brake piston relative to the housing (see figs. 3-5B).
In Re claim 2, the sensor is an inductive sensor (Abstract, par. 0044+).
In Re claim 6, see first component (120); second component (122); and par. 0053.
In Re claim 9, see fig. 5B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanlon et al. (US 2012/0153753) in view of Lin (US 2020/0180587).
In Re claim 1, Hanlon et al. disclose a brake system (10, fig. 1), comprising: a housing (30); and a brake piston (not labeled). Hanlon et al. fail to disclose a brake wear monitoring system.
Lin is related to the art of brake systems. Lin teaches providing a brake system (50) with a brake wear monitoring system, including a sensor assembly (see figs. 5A and 5B) configured to produce a sensor signal indicative of an axial position of a brake piston (80) relative to a housing (54; see figs. 3-5B). The brake wear system senses and informs the operator of the amount of brake pad wear and when the brake pads need to be replaced. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the brake system of Hanlon et al. to include a brake wear monitor system, as taught by Lin, for sensing and informing the operator of the amount of brake pad wear and when the brake pads need to be replaced.
In Re claim 2, the sensor of Lin is an inductive sensor (Abstract, par. 0044+).
In Re claim 3, see rotor plates (36) and stator plates (38) of Hanlon et al..
In Re claims 4 and 5, see sensor controller (106); main controller (108); and par. 0049 of Lin.
In Re claims 6-8, see first component (120); second component (122); and par. 0053 of Lin. The examiner notes that in the brake system as modified, it would have been obvious to mount the sensor (102) and target (104) to any acceptable components of the brake system movable relative to one another during brake actuation and subject to axial displacement with brake wear.
In Re claims 9 and 10, see fig. 5B of Lin.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2020/0180587) in view of Lamb et al. (US 5,255,760).
In Re claim 11, Lin discloses the claimed invention except failing to teach an adjustment device.
Lamb et al. is related to a brake wear monitoring system. Lamb et al. discloses providing a brake system (fig. 3) brake wear monitoring system with a position adjustable target (magnet 38) mounted on a threaded centering bolt (25) with a double nut arrangement (23) locking and adjustment mechanism. Doing so allows the switch to be adjusted to provide a trip when the pad is worn to ten percent of its original thickness, fifteen percent of its original thickness, etc. giving greater flexibility for indication of timing to replace the pads. Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the brake wear monitoring system of Lin to include an adjustment mechanism, as taught by Lamb et al., to enable adjustment and/or correction of the sensor target placement, thus enabling more precise monitoring of the pad thickness of the brake wear monitoring system.
In Re claim 12, see threaded centering bolt (25) of Lamb et al.. It would have been obvious to have provided a similar threaded adjustment bolt in the combined brake wear monitoring system.
In Re claim 13, the adjustment bolt would necessarily extend in the same direction as the brake piston movement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616