DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Publication to Schmengler et al. U.S. 2019/0323277 A1 in view of Ihm 5,509,510.
Regarding claim 1, as previously discussed, Schmengler shows one of applicant's prior brake module devices in figures 3 and 4 including: at least one thrust washer 6 and at least one brake disk 5, wherein the at least one thrust washer 6 and the at least one brake disk 5 each have at least one friction surface, which surfaces rub against one another during braking operation, characterized in that the brake disk 5 is formed in one piece from a plastic material (see paras 0017-0019) and has a number of depressions (see paras 0027) in the at least one friction surface for receiving a lubricant.
As stated in para 0017:
[0017] [0017] The entire brake disc or only one part, such as one or more layers of the brake disc, can be formed by the friction layer. A friction layer of the brake disc can thus form, for example, one or more surface layers (for example, friction layers) of the brake disc or form the entire brake disc.
Nevertheless the reference to Ihm shows a similarly constructed brake disc to that of Schmengler, as shown in figures 1-5, and states in col 3 around lines 19-28:
Initially a MMC material is cast in a mold (not shown) to produce the generally annular rotor insert 22. The casting process can be performed by any suitable casting method, such as die casting, sand casting, permanent mold casting, squeeze casting, or lost foam casting, for example. As will be discussed below, in the preferred embodiment, the rotor insert 22 is of a one-piece construction and includes a pair of integrally cast brake friction plates 24 and 26 which are disposed in mutually spaced apart relationship by a plurality of spacing elements 28.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have made the brake disc of Schmengler from one piece of plastic material with the claimed depressions for receiving lubricant since Schmengler indicates as much in paras 0017-0019 and 0027, (as previously described by the examiner).
Regarding claim 2 Schmengler shows a brake module characterized in that the brake module comprises a first thrust washer and a second thrust washer 6 on each of two opposite sides of the brake disk (fig 4), wherein the brake disk has a friction surface facing each of the thrust washers.
Regarding claim 3 Schmengler shows a brake module characterized in that at least one thrust washer 6 is made of chromium-5 steel (see para 0025).
Regarding claim 4 Schmengler shows a brake module characterized in that the brake disk 5 is annular and has a central opening, wherein the central opening has an approximately circular cross- section with at least two tooth portions 14 separated by recesses.
Regarding claim 5 Schmengler shows a brake module characterized in that the brake module comprises a housing 3,8 in which the brake disk 5 and the at least one thrust washer 6 are guided coaxially about a central axis. wherein the brake module comprises a cover disk 9 which is connected to the housing by a latching connection 10 in such a way that the brake disk 5 and the at least one thrust washer 6 are held in the housing 3,8.
Regarding claim 6 Schmengler shows a brake module characterized in that the housing 8 comprises a number of housing slots 12 whose slot longitudinal axis is aligned parallel to the longitudinal axis of the drive system 2 para 0056, wherein at least one thrust washer 6 has thrust washer projections 13 directed radially outwards from the longitudinal axis which are shaped to be complementary to the housing slots 12, so that the housing slots 12 and the thrust washer projections 13 cooperate in a positively locking manner against a rotation of the thrust washer 6 relative to the housing 8 about the Regarding claim 7 Schmengler shows a brake module according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8 Schmengler shows a brake module in that the drive system is an electrical spindle drive (paras 0005, 0026).
Regarding claimS 9,10 it would have been obvious to have made the depressions (as discussed in para 0027) open radially outward/ or formed as overlapping circular segments simply as an obvious design choice based upon a specific application of the module and to increase its service life.
Regarding claim 11 note the wave spring at 7. Also the choice of spring here would simply depend upon the level of braking force desired and would be an obvious choice as a ‘wave spring’.
Regardiing claim 12 note the spindle arrangement at 2,4, the tooth portions 9,10 and the wings 17.
Regarding claim 13 note the toothed sections at 14,16 in figure 5.
Regarding claim 14 note the disc elements at 5.
Regarding claims 15-20, as discussed above, these limitations are considered to be met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
9/15/26
Prosecution Insights