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 .
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cleary et al. (US – 2022/0136577 A1).
As per claim 1, Cleary discloses Guide Assembly For A Disc Brake comprising:
a guide pin (10, Fig: 1-2);
a guide bore (12, Fig: 1-2) arranged to receive the guide pin (Fig: 1-2) and permit relative axial sliding thereof;
a bush (14a, 14b, Fig: 1-2) arranged to define at least part of the guide bore (Fig: 1-2); and
a sensor arrangement (16, fig: 1-2) configured to provide an output indicative of a state of wear of the bush (Fig: 1-2);
wherein the sensor arrangement is configured to continuously detect the state of wear of the bush (The first guide assembly 8 has at least one bush 14 arranged to define at least part of the guide bore 12. The guide assembly includes a sensor arrangement 16 configured to provide an output indicative of a state of wear of the bush 14, [0062], Fig: 1-2).
As per claim 2, Cleary discloses wherein the sensor arrangement is configured to detect a maximum thickness of the bush (Cleary discloses “a sensor arrangement 16 configured to provide an output indicative of a state of wear of the bush 14, [0062], therefore, its inherently disclose a maximum thickness of the bush, Fig: 1-6).
As per claim 3, Cleary discloses a housing (Attached figure and Fig: 2), wherein the guide bore (12, Fig: 2) comprises a wall defined by the housing (Fig: 2), and wherein the sensor (16) arrangement is configured to detect a radial distance between the wall and the guide pin (10, Fig: 2).
As per claim 4, Cleary discloses wherein the sensor arrangement (16, [0074], Fig: 1-6) comprises at least two sensors (20) ([0082], Figs. 4a, 4b).
As per claim 5, Cleary discloses wherein the sensors (20) are disposed at substantially 180° to one another about a circumference of the guide bore (see FIG. 4a); and/or wherein the sensors are disposed at substantially 90° to one another about the circumference of the guide bore (see FIG. 4a).
As per claim 6, Cleary discloses wherein the guide bore (12, Fig: 2) has an uppermost point and a lowermost point, and wherein the caliper guide assembly comprises a first sensor at said uppermost point and a second sensor at said lowermost point (In Fig: 4a and 4b, sensor component 20 situated in top and bottom surface of 14, therefore, it is a first sensor at said uppermost point and a second sensor at said lowermost point, Fig: 2, 4a, 4b).
As per claim 7, Cleary discloses wherein the at least two sensors (16, 20) are disposed at substantially the same point along a longitudinal axis of the guide bore (Fig: 2-6).
As per claim 8, Cleary discloses wherein at least one sensor is disposed at more than one point along a longitudinal axis of the guide bore (16, 20, Fig: 2-6).
As per claim 14, Cleary discloses Cleary a housing (6), wherein the guide bore comprises a wall defined by the housing (see FIG. 2, below), and wherein the sensor arrangement comprises one or more sensors (16) mounted to the housing (16) (see FIG. 2, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
548
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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 9, 10, 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleary et al. (US – 2022/0136577 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuhlmann (US 2020/0290715).
As per claim 9, Cleary does not disclose that the sensor arrangement comprises at least one sensor positioned inboard of the bush.
Kuhlmann teaches a senor arrangement for detecting wear of a bearing bushing assembly (see Abstract), wherein the sensor arrangement comprises at least one sensor (26) positioned axially outside of a bush (32) (see FIG. 3, 7).
It would have been obvious to replace the abrasion-dependent sensor of Cleary with the abrasion-free sensor disclosed in Kuhlmann to provide a wear detector that can be utilized more than a single use (see e.g. Kuhlmann, ¶ 0012). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to place the wear detector at the inboard side of the bush by choosing one of a finite number of solutions – namely that the sensor can be placed axially outside of the bush on either the inboard side or the outboard side.
As per claim 10, Cleary does not disclose that the sensor arrangement comprises at least one sensor positioned outboard of the bush.
Kuhlmann teaches a senor arrangement for detecting wear of a bearing bushing assembly (see Abstract), wherein the sensor arrangement comprises at least one sensor (26) positioned axially outside of a bush (32) (see FIGS. 3, 7).
It would have been obvious to replace the abrasion-dependent sensor of Cleary with the abrasion-free sensor disclosed in Kuhlmann to provide a wear detector that can be utilized more than a single use (see e.g. Kuhlmann, ¶ 0012). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to place the wear detector at the outboard side of the bush by choosing one of a finite number of solutions – namely that the sensor can be placed axially outside of the bush on either the inboard side or the outboard side.
As per claim 12, Cleary does not disclose that the sensor arrangement comprises: an annulus; and one or more sensors mounted to an inner diameter of the annulus and configured to detect a radial distance in an inward direction therefrom.
Kuhlmann teaches a senor arrangement for detecting wear of a bearing bushing assembly (see Abstract), wherein the sensor arrangement comprises: an annulus (45); and one or more sensors (26) mounted to an inner diameter of the annulus (see FIGS. 7, 8) and configured to detect a radial distance in an inward direction therefrom (see ¶ 0111, 0112).
It would have been obvious to replace the abrasion-dependent sensor of Cleary with the abrasion-free sensor disclosed in Kuhlmann to provide a wear detector that can be utilized more than a single use (see e.g. Kuhlmann, ¶ 0012).
As per claim 15, Cleary does not disclose that the sensor or each sensor is mounted directly to the wall.
Kuhlmann teaches a senor arrangement for detecting wear of a bearing bushing assembly (see Abstract), wherein the sensor arrangement comprises: a housing (12) comprising a wall (see FIG. 4) and a sensor (26) mounted directly to the wall (see FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to replace the abrasion-dependent sensor of Cleary with the abrasion-free sensor, which is mounted directly to a housing wall, disclosed in Kuhlmann to provide a wear detector that can be utilized more than a single use (see e.g. Kuhlmann, ¶ 0012).
As per claim 16, Cleary does not disclose that the sensor or each sensor comprises a threaded portion, and wherein the housing defines one or more threaded bores each configured to receive the threaded portion of the sensor.
Kuhlmann teaches a senor arrangement for detecting wear of a bearing bushing assembly (see Abstract), wherein the sensor arrangement comprises: a housing (12) comprising a wall (see FIG. 4) and a sensor (26) comprising a threaded portion (see ¶ 0031), and wherein the housing defines one or more threaded bores each configured to receive the threaded portion of the sensor (see ¶ 0031; FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to replace the abrasion-dependent sensor of Cleary with the abrasion-free sensor disclosed in Kuhlmann to provide a wear detector that can be utilized more than a single use (see e.g. Kuhlmann, ¶ 0012).
As per claim 17, Cleary does not disclose that the sensor arrangement comprises a capacitive sensor; or wherein the sensor arrangement comprises an ultrasonic sensor.
Kuhlmann teaches a senor arrangement for detecting wear of a bearing bushing assembly (see Abstract), wherein the sensor arrangement comprises: a capacitive sensor; or wherein the sensor arrangement comprises an ultrasonic sensor (see ¶ 0032).
It would have been obvious to replace the abrasion-dependent sensor of Cleary with the abrasion-free sensor disclosed in Kuhlmann to provide a wear detector that can be utilized more than a single use (see e.g. Kuhlmann, ¶ 0012).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleary et al. (US – 2022/0136577 A1) and Kuhlmann (US 2020/0290715), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taylor et al. (US 2021/0270334).
As per claim 13, neither Cleary nor Taylor disclose that the annulus is secured within the guide bore via an interference fit with a wall defined by a housing, and/or wherein the annulus is secured within the guide bore by means of a keyway.
Taylor teaches a sensor for a caliper guide assembly (see Abstract, FIG. 1) wherein the sensor comprises an annulus (60) and the annulus is secured within the guide bore (12a) via an interference fit with a wall defined by a housing (see ¶ 0051), and/or wherein the annulus is secured within the guide bore by means of a keyway.
It would have been obvious to provide an interference fit for the mounting of the annulus to simplify assembly (e.g. fasteners and/or adhesives can be eliminated due to interference fit).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleary et al. (US – 2022/0136577 A1) in view of Kuhlmann (US 2020/0290715).
As per claim 18, Cleary discloses a sensor arrangement for a caliper guide assembly (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-6b).
Cleary does not disclose that the sensor arrangement comprises: an annulus; and one or more sensors mounted to an inner diameter of the annulus and configured to detect a radial distance in an inward direction therefrom.
Kuhlmann teaches a senor arrangement for detecting wear of a bearing bushing assembly (see Abstract), wherein the sensor arrangement comprises: an annulus (45); and one or more sensors (26) mounted to an inner diameter of the annulus (see FIGS. 7, 8) and configured to detect a radial distance in an inward direction therefrom (see ¶ 0111, 0112).
It would have been obvious to replace the abrasion-dependent sensor of Cleary with the abrasion-free sensor disclosed in Kuhlmann to provide a wear detector that can be utilized more than a single use (see e.g. Kuhlmann, ¶ 0012).
Regarding claim 19, Kuhlmann teaches that the sensor arrangement comprises two sensors disposed at substantially 180° to one another about a circumference of the annulus (see FIG. 8); and/or wherein the sensor arrangement comprises two or more sensors disposed at substantially 90° to one another about the circumference of the annulus (see FIG. 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
Prior art and teaching references fail to disclose wherein the sensor arrangement comprises at least one sensor positioned outboard of the bush (Claim 10), one or more sensors mounted to an inner diameter of the annulus and configured to detect a radial distance to the guide pin (Claim 12) and wherein the sensor or each sensor comprises a threaded portion, and wherein the housing defines one or more threaded bores each configured to receive the threaded portion of the sensor (Claim 16).
Claim 13 depends on claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A: Weiler et al. (US – 5,087,907),
B: Szafnauer et al. (US – 2022/0299079 A1),
C: Szafnauer et al. (US – 2022/0299075 A1),
D: Taylor et al. (US – 2019/0162256 A1), and
E: HACKLBERGER et al. (US – 2018/0347651 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN M AUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5792. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:30 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.
/SAN M AUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights