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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed as of 2/10/2026 have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) for the following informalities:
Reference character “51” has been used to designate both a drum brake and an actuator (see pgh. 0095).
Reference characters “2” and “51” have both been used to designate a drum brake (pgh. 0095 and0096 at least).
Reference characters “16” and “52” have both been used to designate an adjuster (pgh. 0017 and 0022 vs. 0085-0086 and 0092).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Konjiki et al. (JP H08-210395 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Konjiki discloses A drum brake (fig. 2), comprising:
a braking member (2a) configured to brake a drum rotor (1) by being pressed against an inner peripheral surface of the drum rotor (as shown) rotating together with a wheel (pgh. 0003 at least, “wheel brake drum”), the braking member including (see fig. 1):
a first lining portion (41) that is one end portion of a friction material in an arc shape opposing the inner peripheral surface of the drum rotor in a rotation direction of the drum rotor (as shown);
a second lining portion (43) that is another end portion of the friction material in the rotation direction of the drum rotor (as shown); and
a third lining portion (42) 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 (42 has a higher coefficient of friction, thus will wear earlier/faster due to excess friction and heat generation);
a back plate (top surface of 21) that is configured to support the braking member (as shown), and is fixed to a non-rotation portion of a vehicle (via anchor pin 3a) ; and
an actuator unit (6) configured to press the braking member against the inner peripheral surface of the drum rotor (see pgh. 0025).
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.
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konjiki et al. (JP H08-210395 A) in view of Wallmeier et al. (U.S. 2014/0202806).
Regarding claims 2-3, Konjiki does not appear to disclose a gap between the lining materials. In the same field of endeavor of drum brakes, Wallmeier teaches a drum brake 1 including 3 lining materials 41,42,43, with first and second gaps between the respective lining materials (see fig. 7, gap between 43 and 42, and another gap between 42 and 41), wherein the first gap portion has a shape different from the shape of the second gap portion as viewed from a side of the inner peripheral surface of the drum rotor (as shown, left gap is predominantly triangular and smaller while right gap is more trapezoidal and larger).
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 gaps between the different friction materials of Konjiki as suggested by Wallmeier to allow for airflow between the pads, thereby improving cooling.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konjiki et al. (JP H08-210395 A) in view of Klein (U.S. 3647033).
Regarding claim 4, Konjiki does not appear to disclose the third lining being a different mixing component or ratio from the first and second lining. In other words, claim 4 requires the third lining being a unique mixing component or ratio relative to the remaining linings. In the same field of endeavor of drum brakes, Klein teaches a drum brake (fig. 1) including first and second lining portions (21,23) each being different in mixing component or mixing ratio of a material from the other (liner 21 being an “organic lining” and liner 23 being a “semimetallic material”). Accordingly, Klein suggests providing at least one lining with a different material than another lining, which constitutes a different mixing component or ratio at least.
In order to arrive at the claimed invention, at least one lining of Konjiki would be made of the organic material while other linings would be made of the semimetallic material. Upon selecting the lining 42 of Konjiki to be made of the organic material, for example, and the linings 41, 43 can be made of the semimetallic material, one of ordinary skill in the art arrives at the claimed invention. Additionally, the organic material has a “relatively high-friction level”, thus corresponding to the high friction coefficient already present in Konjiki. 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 lining 42 of Konjiki with the organic material and the other linings with the semimetallic material to improve low speed braking sensitivity (col. 2 lines 30-56 of Klein).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konjiki et al. (JP H08-210395 A) in view of Ichikawa et al. (JPH11325141A).
Regarding claim 5, while Konjiki discloses the third lining portion wearing earlier (due to higher friction coefficient), Konjiki does not appear to disclose different porosities in the lining portions. Ichikawa teaches providing a friction material with high friction coefficient but also high cumulative porosity of 8% by volume ore more and maximum inner diameter of 1 micron or less among the pores. In order to arrive at the claimed invention, the high friction coefficient third lining of Konjiki would be provided with high cumulative porosity of 8% by volume ore more and maximum inner diameter of 1 micron or less as suggested by Ichikawa. 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 porosity construction of Ichikawa in the third lining of Konjiki to maintain fade resistance (i.e. maintain relatively high friction coefficient after the lining is worn) while also improving squealing performance (see pgh. 0009 of Ichikawa at least).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konjiki et al. (JP H08-210395 A) in view of Pfaff (U.S. 2006/0225975).
Regarding claims 6-8, Konjiki 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 Konjiki 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 Konjiki et al. (JP H08-210395 A) in view of Guignon et al. (WO 2015/101486 A2).
Regarding claims 9-12, Konjiki 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).
Conclusion
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