DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not provide antecedent basis for the limitation in claim 21 reciting “unscrewing with a screwdriver”. The limitation must be recited in the specification.
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.
Claims 13-15 are 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 12 recites “at least one bore formed in or on the brake cylinder”. Dependent claim 13 recites “wherein the at least one bore is formed in one of : i) a wall of the brake cylinder, or ii) in a separate body …”. It is unclear in which component the bore is formed since the bore has been recited to be in or on the brake cylinder in claim 12 and cannot be in a separate body.
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 12, 13, 16, 17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner (US 3830343).
Re claim 12, Gardner teaches a commercial vehicle disc brake for use with a brake disc, comprising: a pneumatic brake cylinder (43) having an extendable and retractable piston rod (54); a brake caliper (17); a brake application device (57); and a fastening device (See unnumbered bolts, Fig. 1, 2), wherein the brake caliper engages over the brake disc (13) in use, and the brake application device, which is actuatable by the brake cylinder, is arranged in the brake caliper, and by which brake pads (19, 24) are pressable against the brake disc on both sides during braking; wherein the extendable and retractable piston rod of the brake cylinder is in engagement with the brake application device, the brake caliper is detachably fastened to the brake cylinder via the fastening device wherein fastening device comprises at least one screw with a screw head. (Fig. 1, 2)
Gardner does not teach wherein fastening device comprises a screw shank and an external thread formed on the screw shank, and at least one bore formed in or on the brake cylinder with an internal thread, into which the screw shank is screwed with the external thread. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a fastening device and screw connection since such connections are well known means for securing two components with a bolt.
Re claim 13, Gardner as modified teaches wherein the bore is formed in a wall of the brake cylinder (41), or in a separate body which is detachably or non-detachably connected to the wall of the brake cylinder.
[AltContent: textbox (Fastening Device)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Annular washer)]
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
344
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 16, Gardner as modified teaches an annular washer arranged between the screwhead and the counter surface. (Fig. 1, See above)
Re claim 17, Gardner as modified teaches wherein the counter surface comprises a screw eye. (Fig. 1)
Re claim 19, Gardner as modified teaches wherein the at least one screw and the piston rod (54) are arranged parallel to each other. (Fig. 1)
Re claim 20, Gardner as modified teaches wherein the pneumatic brake cylinder is: a) part of a combined service and spring brake cylinder, or b) a separate service brake cylinder (43).
Re claim 21, Gardner as modified teaches a method for detaching a brake cylinder having an extendable and retractable piston rod from a brake caliper of a disc brake comprising; b) unscrewing the at least one screw from the bore in or on the brake cylinder; c) removing the at least one screw; and d) disengaging the piston rod of the brake cylinder from the brake application device in the brake caliper. (See above re claim 12, Fig. 1, 2) Gardner does not teach attaching a screwdriver to the screw head. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to provide a screw head in place of the bolt head of Gardner since screw heads and screwdrivers are well known alternatives for securing connectors.
Re claim 22, the disc brake of Gardner as modified is capable of use in a commercial vehicle.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner (US 3830343) in view of Tsubouchi (US 4587884).
Re claim 14, Gardner as modified does not teach wherein a separate body is arranged inside the brake cylinder and the screw shank extends through a through bore in the wall of the brake cylinder and is screwed into the bore of the body. Tsubouchi teaches a separate body (24) connected to the wall of a cylinder (21) wherein a separate body is arranged inside the cylinder and a screw shank (25) extends through a through bore in the wall of the cylinder. (Fig. 2) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a separate body connected to the wall of a cylinder in order to provide reinforcement of the connection. Tsubouchi does not explicitly teach wherein the screw shank is screwed into the bore of the body. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a screw connection in the bore of the body in order to provide a more secure connection.
Re claim 15, Gardner as modified does not teach wherein the separate body is welded to the wall of the brake cylinder. Tsubouchi teaches wherein the separate body (24) is secured to the cylinder (21). (Column 2, line 66 – Column 3, line 4) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to weld the separate body to the wall of the brake cylinder since welding is a well known means for securing two elements to one another.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gardner does not teach wherein the brake caliper is detachably fastened to the brake cylinder via the fastening device. Additionally, Applicant argues that Gardner does not teach the screw head being locked on a counter surface of the brake caliper. The Examiner’s position is that the caliper can be interpreted as being detachably fastened to the brake cylinder via the fastening device with the bracket being a part of the caliper. Applicant’s claim language
Re Tsubouchi, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Tsubouchi is merely relied upon for a teaching of “a separate body is arranged inside the brake cylinder and the screw shank extends through a through bore in the wall of the brake cylinder and is screwed into the bore of the body.” Although Tsubouchi teaches extending through a brake cylinder that differs from Gardner, the operation of the cylinder is not relied upon in the rejection. The teaching of the connection between components comprising a seprate body as taught by Tsubouchi is within the same art and has the same effect and operation within the art. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
MTW
August 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights