DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 § 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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaim (U.S. 4732240) in view of Wang (U.S. 2003/0029682).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Flaim discloses A drum brake (fig. 4), comprising:
a braking member (e.g. 30) configured to brake a drum rotor (12) by being pressed against an inner peripheral surface of the drum rotor (as shown) rotating together with a wheel (see col. 10 lines 29-57 at least), the braking member including:
a friction material (440) in an arc shape opposing the inner peripheral surface of the drum rotor in a rotation direction of the drum rotor (as shown), the friction material having an outer diameter (as shown), a center of the outer diameter (plus in the middle), and a center of an inner diameter of the drum rotor (plus in the middle);
a first lining portion (one of 441 and 443) that is one end portion of the friction material in the rotation direction of the drum rotor;
a second lining portion (another of 441 and 443) that is another end portion of the friction material in the rotation direction of the drum rotor (as shown); and
a third lining portion (area between 441 and 443) that is positioned between the one end portion and the another end portion in the rotation direction of the drum rotor (as shown), and is produced such that the third lining portion wears earlier than the first lining portion and the second lining portion (middle section is taller, and thus wears earlier than the shorter sections), the drum brake further comprising:
a back plate (14) that is configured to support the braking member (as shown), and is fixed to a non-rotation portion of a vehicle (typical brake structure) ; and
an actuator unit (16) configured to press the braking member against the inner peripheral surface of the drum rotor (see col. 10 lines 29-57 at least).
Flaim does not appear to disclose the respective centers of the outer diameter and inner diameter of the drum being offset. In the same field of endeavor of drum brakes, Wang teaches a drum brake (10) with shoe 11, drum braking surface of the drum (not shown, see pgh. 0038), and where the shoe may be positioned either centrally with respect to the rotation axis of the drum, or eccentrically with respect thereto (see pgh. 0006). In order to arrive at the claimed invention, the shoe of Flaim would be positioned eccentrically to the drum as suggested by Wang. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the shoe of Flaim eccentrically mounted to the drum as suggested by Wang to provide the capability of different lining thicknesses on leading and trailing sides, or to otherwise compensate for uneven wear (see pgh. 0006 Wang).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaim (U.S. 4732240) in view of Wang (U.S. 2003/0029682), and further in view of Pfaff (U.S. 2006/0225975).
Regarding claims 6-8, Flaim does not appear to disclose groove portions in the lining. 6. In the same field of endeavor of drum brakes, Pfaff teaches (see fig. 4) a drum brake (30) including a lining piece (34b) and a groove portion (50c) is provided on an outer peripheral surface of the third lining portion (as shown), wherein the groove portion has a groove width in a depth direction gradually decreasing from the outer peripheral surface of the third lining portion toward a direction of a rotation center of the drum rotor (see pgh. 0025, depth at back wall 16 near the middle of the center is one half inch, and depth at the outer side near the outer peripheral surface is five eights inch, thus the depth gradually decreases toward the rotation center), wherein the groove portion includes a plurality of grooves (50c and 50d), and wherein the plurality of grooves are different from one another in depth and groove width in each of the plurality of grooves (groove 50d is deepest toward the center and gets shallower toward the outer peripheral surface, so this groove is “different” in depth and groove width in that it is effectively oriented backwards from the groove 50c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the grooves of Pfaff on the lining piece of Flaim to provide the additional capability of removing water, mud salt, sand, foreign materials, etc. from the drum and pad (see pgh. 0006-0012 of Pfaff).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaim (U.S. 4732240) in view of Wang (U.S. 2003/0029682), and further in view of Guignon et al. (WO 2015/101486 A2).
Regarding claims 9-12, Flaim does not appear to disclose a parking brake mechanism. In the same field of endeavor of drum brakes, Guignon teaches the actuator unit includes a parking brake mechanism (lower assembly including 5, 32,33, etc. see abstract “second actuator”) that holds a braking force (typical function of a parking brake), wherein the parking brake mechanism operates through a rotation force of an electric motor (5), wherein the parking brake mechanism operates as a duo-servo type (see abstract),wherein the actuator unit includes: a wheel cylinder (11) that is provided on a side of the one end portion (top side in fig. 2), and is configured to operate through a hydraulic pressure (see page 56 pgh. 6, “the first actuator comprises an actuator of a type operating by displacement of one or more pistons under the effect of a hydraulic pressure”); and the parking brake mechanism that is provided on a side of the another end portion (bottom side as shown), and is configured to operate as a leading trailing type when a service brake operates (the device operates as a “leading trailing type” because the actuators are on opposite sides, one on the leading side and one on the trailing side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the parking brake in conjunction with the service brakes, where the service brakes are hydraulic and the parking brake is electric, where the parking brake operates as a duo servo type, and the two actuators are on opposite sides of the pad, for numerous related reasons, for example to provide a drum brake device with improved efficiency in parking brake or emergency brake compared to the actuation force applied and maintained, better management of geometric variations due to temperature changes, in combination with reliable and quiet operation, use of a limited number of parts and simple parts, with ease and economy of manufacturing, assembly and maintenance, while retaining all or part of the benefits of simplex or duplex mode, providing a device that is compatible with the technical developments of the control modes of automotive components, for example by electrical control, and allowing variety and ease of adaptation of this device in an existing vehicle or under design, and flexibility of integration into a mounting process exist or being designed (see page 54 pgh. 7 to page 55 pgh. 2 of Guignon).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome any 112(b) rejections, as appropriate.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/DAVID MORRIS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights