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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “fully received.” In light of the specification and drawings it is unclear if “fully received” means the adapter is flush with the adjusting spindle or if “fully received” means the adapter is received enough to prevent accidental axial movement of the adapter. For purposes of examination the limitation “fully received” is being interpreted as the adapter is received enough to prevent accidental axial movement of the adapter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harder (US 20210024041 A1), in view of Theiss et. al. (US 6820727 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Harder discloses A disc brake for a motor vehicle, the disc brake comprising: a brake carrier (12), two brake pads (3), a brake caliper (2) axially adjustably supported on the brake carrier, a clamping device having a pressure piece (17) with an internal thread by which the brake pads (3) can be pressed against a brake disc, and an adjusting unit having which has an adjusting spindle (5) for setting a clearance of the disc brake (1), wherein the adjusting spindle (5) has an external thread that is screwed into the internal thread of the pressure piece (17) (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3).
Harder appears to, but does not explicitly, disclose wherein the adjusting spindle can be axially reset via rotational movement by a resetting tool. Additionally, Harder does not disclose wherein a cylindrical adapter, is disposed in a recess of the adjusting spindle at an end of the adjusting spindle facing away from the brake pads, wherein the adapter has a cavity in its center designed as a tool interface for the resetting tool.
Theiss teaches wherein the adjusting spindle (3) can be axially reset via rotational movement by a resetting tool, wherein a cylindrical adapter (4), is disposed in a recess of the adjusting spindle at an end of the adjusting spindle facing away from the brake pads, wherein the adapter has a cavity in its center designed as a tool interface for the resetting tool (see Fig. 1, 3: 20-23).
It would have been obvious to combine the concept of using a resetting tool on the adjusting spindle and the corresponding cylindrical adapter of Theiss with the disc brake of Harder in order to allow manual resetting of the adjusting spindle in the case of a replacement of the brake lining and in order to limit destruction of the brake under adjusting spindle torque loads (see US 6820727 B1 [Theiss]; 1: 17-26, 1:62-67, 2:1-4)
Regarding Claim 2, Theiss teaches wherein the recess of the adjusting spindle is an axially extending cylindrical opening in the adjusting spindle, and the cavity of the adapter is a continuous axially extending hole (see Fig. 1, 2:49-67, 3:1-8, 3:20-23).
Regarding Claim 4, Theiss teaches wherein the adapter is fixed in the recess of the adjusting spindle by a non-positive connection (see Fig. 1, 3:50-53).
Regarding Claim 5, Theiss teaches wherein the adapter has a cylindrical extension, wherein the adapter is inserted into the recess of the adjusting spindle with the extension leading (see Fig. 1, 2:49-67, 3:1-8).
Regarding Claim 6, Theiss teaches wherein a contour including elevations is formed on an outer circumference of the extension and the recess of the adjusting spindle has a corresponding contour that provides a positive connection between the adapter and the adjusting spindle (see Fig. 1, 2:49-67, 3:1-8).
Regarding Claim 13, Theiss teaches wherein the adapter (4) is a separate piece relative to the adjusting spindle (3), whereby the adapter (4) can be removed and replaced to provide for various tool-adapter interface (see Fig. 1, 3:1-8)
Regarding Claim 16, Theiss teaches wherein the adapter is fully received in the recess of the adjusting spindle (see Fig. 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harder (US 20210024041 A1), modified by Theiss et. al. (US 6820727 B1) as applied to Claim 1, above, further in view of Vaughn (US 4497225 A).
Regarding Claim 3, Harder modified by Theiss teaches the disc brake claimed in Claim 1.
Harder modified by Theiss does not explicitly teach wherein the adapter has a conical recess on a side facing away from the adjusting spindle, wherein the cavity is arranged in the center of the conical recess, wherein the concical recess guides the resetting tool to the cavity when the resetting tool is inserted into an opening of the brake caliper.
Vaughn teaches a curved guiding wall inside a tool interface recess, wherein the cavity is arranged in the center of the conical recess, wherein the conical recess guides the resetting toll to the cavity when the resetting toll is inserted into an opening of the interface (see Fig. 3, 2:57-67, 3:1-4).
It would have been obvious to combine the curved guiding wall of Vauhgn with the adapter recess of Harder modified by Theiss in order to make it easier to insert the tool and ensure the tool is fully engaged with the adapter to supply intended amounts of torque (see US 4497225 A [Vaughn]; 2:57-67, 3:1-4).
Claims 7-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harder (US 20210024041 A1), modified by Theiss et. al. (US 6820727 B1) as applied to Claim 1, above, further in view of Martin (US 3998295 A).
Regarding Claim 7, Harder modified by Theiss teaches the disc brake claimed in Claim 1.
Harder modified by Theiss does not explicitly teach wherein the disc brake has a stop having a rotation limitation for resetting the adjusting spindle, and wherein a stop surface for the rotation limitation is arranged on a side of the adapter facing away from the brake pads, or a stop surface of the adjusting spindle for the rotation limitation is arranged on an end of the adjusting spindle facing away from the brake pads.
Martin teaches wherein the disc brake has a stop (129) having a rotation limitation for resetting the adjusting spindle, and wherein a stop surface (128) for the rotation limitation is arranged on a side of the adapter (127) facing away from the brake pads, or a stop surface of the adjusting spindle for the rotation limitation is arranged on an end of the adjusting spindle facing away from the brake pads (see Fig. 7, 9:14-30).
It would have been obvious to combine the disc brake stop of Martin with the disc brake of Harder modified by Theiss in order to stop unintended movement of the adjuster spindle (see US 3998295 A [Martin]; 9:26-27).
Regarding Claim 8, Martin teaches wherein the adapter (127) has a tooth-like contour on a side facing away from the adjusting spindle (128) configured to engage a corresponding contour on a side of the brake caliper (129) facing towards the adjusting spindle for limiting rotation (see Fig. 7, 9:14-30).
Regarding Claim 9, Martin teaches wherein the tooth-like contour of the adapter has one or more sawtooth-shaped, rectangular, or trapezoidal elevations or recesses (see Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 17, Martin teaches wherein the tooth-like contour projects beyond the end of the adjusting spindle (see Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 18, Martin teaches wherein the rotation limitation correspondingly limits axial movement of the pressure piece (see Fig. 7).
Claims 7, 10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harder (US 20210024041 A1), modified by Theiss et. al. (US 6820727 B1) as applied to Claim 1, above, further in view of Ta (US 5076401 A).
Regarding Claim 7, Harder modified by Theiss teaches the disc brake claimed in Claim 1.
Harder modified by Theiss does not explicitly teach wherein the disc brake has a stop having a rotation limitation for resetting the adjusting spindle, and wherein a stop surface for the rotation limitation is arranged on a side of the adapter facing away from the brake pads, or a stop surface of the adjusting spindle for the rotation limitation.
Ta teaches wherein the disc brake has a stop (17, 11) having a rotation limitation for resetting the adjusting spindle, and wherein a stop surface (17) for the rotation limitation is arranged on a side of the adapter facing away from the brake pads, or a stop surface of the adjusting spindle for the rotation limitation is arranged on an end of the adjusting spindle facing away from the brake pads (see Fig. 1, 5:65-57, 6:1-16).
It would have been obvious to combine the disc brake stop of Ta with the disc brake of Harder modified by Theiss in order to prevent unintended rotation of the adjuster (see US 5076401 A [Ta]; 2:54-55).
Regarding Claim 10, Ta teaches wherein the adapter or the adjusting spindle has a conical stop surface (17) at the end of the adjusting spindle facing away from the brake pads, the brake caliper or a separate component of the brake caliper has an opening with a conical stop surface on a side facing towards the adjusting spindle (11), and the conical stop surface of the adapter or of the adjusting spindle engages the conical stop surface of the opening when the adjusting spindle is reset, and the engaged conical stop surfaces thereby cause a stop with a rotation limit (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4, 3:1-6).
Regarding Claim 14, Ta teaches wherein the conical stop surfaces limit rotation in response to increased friction (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Ta teaches wherein the adapter (28) includes the conical stop surface (17), wherein the adapter (28) is partially received in the recess of the adjusting spindle, and the conical stop (17) surface of the adapter (28) projects beyond the end of the adjusting spindle (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4, 3:1-6).
Claims 11-12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harder (US 20210024041 A1), modified by Theiss et. al. (US 6820727 B1) as applied to Claim 1, above, further in view of Jungmann (US 20200393009 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Harder modified by Theiss teaches the disc brake as claimed in Claim 1.
Harder modified by Theiss does not explicitly teach wherein the disc brake is a sliding caliper disc brake operated with compressed air for a commercial vehicle.
Jungmann teaches wherein a disc brake is a sliding caliper disc brake operated with compressed air for a commercial vehicle (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0001], [0020]).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of a disc brake of Klaas with the disc brake of Harder modified by Theiss in order to provide an adaptive wear adjuster to commercial vehicles with compressed air operated brake systems.
Regarding Claim 12, Harder modified by Theiss teaches the disc brake as claimed in Claim 1.
Harder modified by Theiss does not explicitly teach a motor vehicle comprising the disc brake.
Jungmann teaches motor vehicle comprising a disc brake (see [0001]).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Klaas with the disc brake of Theiss in order to provide an adaptive wear adjuster brake to a motor vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00.
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.
/S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616