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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 recites, "The method according to claim 12, wherein only one or more selected regions of the spindle nut are nitrocarburized.”. Claim 13 ultimately depends on claim 11, which previously recited “nitrocarburizing the spindle nut”. As written, the method of claim 11 necessarily requires nitrocarburizing at least some portion of the spindle nut. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “only one or more selected regions” in claim 13 encompasses both the possibility of one region coated and other regions uncoated, and the possibility of a single region that covers the entire spindle nut, such that the spindle nut is at least partially coated. As such, claim 13 fails to further limit claim 11, because infringement cannot occur on claim 13 without also necessarily infringing on claim 11.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aramoto et al. (U.S. 2016/0033019) in view of Dong et al. (CN 107289044 A) and Zhang et al. (CN 105603360 A).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 9-10, Aramoto discloses (figs. 1-2) A ball screw drive for an actuator assembly of a vehicle brake, a vehicle brake (fig. 1) having an actuator assembly (1), and a brake piston that forms a spindle nut (as shown) and method of producing thereof, comprising a rotatably mounted recirculating ball screw spindle (28), on which a spindle nut (17/30) open on one side (right side) is mounted,
wherein at least one thread groove (fig. 2, grooves of 28) is formed on a circumferential surface of the recirculating ball screw spindle (outer circumferential surface), and a corresponding thread groove is formed on an inner surface of the spindle nut (fig. 2 inner surface of 30),
wherein a multiplicity of balls (29) is guided in the thread grooves in such a way that rotation of the recirculating ball screw spindle brings about axial movement of the spindle nut along a rotational axis of the recirculating ball screw spindle (see pgh. 0032), and
wherein the spindle nut is one-piece having the thread grooves on the inner surface (as shown) and an outer surface (as shown).
Aramoto does not appear to disclose the outer surface of the spindle nut directly engaging a running surface of a brake caliper, but rather a running surface of a piston housing 17. In the same field of endeavor of disk brakes, Dong teaches (fig. 1) a vehicle brake including a spindle nut (11) cooperating with a ball screw spindle (5), wherein the spindle nut is one-piece (as shown) having threaded grooves on the inner surface (page 6 of the translation, “inner thread of the piston 11”) and an outer surface directly engaging (as shown) a running surface of a brake caliper (3). To arrive at the claimed invention, elements 30 and 17 of Aramoto are effectively combined into a single component, as suggested by Dong. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the spindle nut such that the inner surface has thread grooves and the outer surface directly engages with the caliper to simplify the assembly of the device, since now only a single piece needs to be mounted within the caliper for the spindle nut rather than two pieces.
Aramoto does not appear to disclose hardening the spindle nut by ferritic nitrocarburizing, such that both the surface defining the thread groove and the outer surface are hardened by nitrocarburizing. In the same field of endeavor of vehicle brake calipers and pistons, Zhang teaches a piston (equivalent to the spindle nut of Aramoto since both elements function to compress the brake disk) that is treated with a QPQ salt bath composite treatment including salt bath nitriding, polishing and salt bath oxidation, with temperature of 560 ± 10°C (see page 12 pghs. 2-3), which is a type of ferritic nitrocarburization. In order to arrive at the claimed invention, the spindle nut 17/30 of Aramoto would be treated with the QPQ process described in Zhang.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have treated the spindle nut of Aramoto with the hardening treatment of Zhang in order to prevent corrosion of the main structure of the spindle nut (page 9 last paragraph), reduce wear (page 10 second to last paragraph), and prevent unnecessary pollution by another hardening process such as hard chromium (page 10 first two paragraphs).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Aramoto as modified teaches nitrocarburizing the spindle nut/piston within the range of 570° C. to 580° C and at a temperature of up to 700° C (see page 12 pghs. 2-3, 560 ± 10°C which includes 570°C, thus falling within the claimed range)
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Aramoto as modified teaches pretreating the spindle nut by hardening and tempering and/or surface hardening before nitrocarburizing (see page 11 last paragraph, preheating at 350-420°C in preparation for nitriding, which constitutes hardening and tempering at least).
Regarding claim 5, Aramoto as modified teaches nitrocarburizing the spindle nut on its entire surface or only in some region or regions (as modified, Zhang teaches “treating [the element] with a QPQ salt bath”, which necessarily involves placing the entire part in the salt bath such that the entire surface is ultimately treated).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Aramoto as modified teaches cooling the spindle nut in an oxidizing salt bath or in an oxidation atmosphere after nitrocarburizing (see page 13 pghs. 4-5, salt bath oxidation with a temperature of 370 ± 10°C which is cooler than the nitriding bath, thus constituting “cooling”).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Aramoto as modified teaches smoothing the spindle nut in a region of the thread groove after nitrocarburizing (page 13 pghs. 3-4, polishing after the nitriding furnace. The entire part is polished to remove loose particles, which could occur anywhere on the part. As modified, this polishing would then include “in a region of the thread groove”, i.e. near the thread groove at least).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Aramoto as modified teaches the spindle nut is nitrocarburized by one of gas nitrocarburizing, salt-bath nitrocarburizing, plasma nitrocarburizing, or powder nitrocarburizing, or is nitrocarburized in a fluidized bed (salt bath, as described).
Regarding claim 13, Aramoto as modified teaches only one or more selected regions of the spindle nut are nitrocarburized (as modified, Zhang teaches “treating [the element] with a QPQ salt bath”, therefore at least one region is coated, which is deemed to read on the limitation. Note the broadest reasonable interpretation of “only one or more selected regions” encompasses both a) one region and not others, as well as b) a single region that covers the entire component. In other words, part or all of the component can contain the coating).
Response to Arguments
The claim amendments have alleviated the previous rejection, however a new grounds of rejection is made further in view of Dong, as appears above.
Applicant contends that claim 13 was amended to alleviate the 112(d) rejection. However, the issue is still present in claim 13 due to the verbiage of the claim.
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 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