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
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 1-2, 13-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bach et al. U.S. 2017/0363164) in view of Gutelius (U.S. 2015/0204402).
Regarding claim 1, Bach discloses (figs. 1-2) An apparatus for a brake drum (1) having a drum brake assembly with first and second brake shoes (2,3), comprising:
a motor (see pgh. 0002 and 0004);
first (right side, 12/16/18) and second (left side, 13/17/18) ball ramp assemblies for receiving torque from the input and having ends (left and right outermost ends respectively) aligned with the respective first and second brake shoes; and
the motor being actuatable for lengthening each ball ramp assembly to move the brake shoes and apply braking force to the brake drum (see pgh. 0038 at least).
Bach does not appear to disclose the motor having a pinion gear, a gear train for receiving torque from the pinion gear (including first and second output gears thereof), and the ball ramp assemblies (ultimately) receiving torque from the pinion gear. It is noted that the first and second body parts 12,13 must receive rotational force in order to convert the rotational force to linear force via the ball ramps at 18 to translate the transmission bodies 16,17 linearly to engage the brake, but the reference does not describe how the first and second body parts ultimately receive rotational force. In the same field of endeavor of drum brakes, Gutelius teaches a drum brake (title at least) having first and second shoes (4), and a motor actuated (via motor 30) braking unit (20), where the motor has a pinion gear (gear 10 attached to 32), a gear train (50) for receiving torque from the pinion gear, first and second output gears (at least two of 34,36,38), wherein the actuator assembly (40) receives torque from the pinion gear (via the gear train 50) to convert the rotational energy into a linear force to engage the brake.
In order to arrive at the claimed invention, the first and second body parts 12,13 of Bach would receive rotational torque from the pinion and gear train of Gutelius. Upon making the modification, the first ball ramp assembly would (ultimately) receive torque from a first output (e.g. 36, which is an output of gear 10 mounted at 32), and the second ball ramp assembly would (ultimately) receive torque from a second output (e.g. 38, which is an output of gear 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the pinion gear and gear train of Gutelius within the brake actuator of Bach in order to ensure equal braking force to each shoe (see pgh. 0005 at least) as well as create a gear reduction to the ball ramp assembly, which thereby increases the torque able to be applied and thus pressing force of the shoe is increased.
Regarding claim 2, Bach as modified discloses (figs. 1-2) the gear train comprises one of a planetary and a differential gear train that evenly divides torque from the motor between the first and second ball ramp assemblies (as modified, differential 50, which ultimately sends torque to be evenly divided between the two ball ramp assemblies).
Regarding claim 13, Bach as modified discloses (figs. 1-2) a guide (10) fixed to the vehicle and receiving the ball ramp assemblies (as shown).
Regarding claim 14, Bach as modified discloses (figs. 1-2) a return spring configured to be connected to both brake shoes for biasing the brake shoes towards one another (see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
704
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Bach as modified discloses (figs. 1-2) each of the first and second ball ramp assemblies includes a first ramp and a second ramp (as shown) rotatable relative to the first ramp (the relative rotation causes axial movement of the ramps, as is understood), the first and second ramps of the first ball ramp assembly being rotatable relative to the first and second ramps of the second ball ramp assembly (the first and second ramps of the first assembly in general rotate relative to the first and second ramps of the second assembly, in general, because at least one component of the first assembly rotates relative to at least one component of the second assembly).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed. Claims 3-12 and 22 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 filed 9/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends at the top of page 8 of the remarks that Bach does not disclose a first ball ramp receiving torque from a first output of the gear train and a second ball ramp receiving torque from a second output of the gear train. It is noted that Bach discloses first and second ball ramps, but Gutelius was relied upon for the teaching of the gear train and outputs thereof. As mapped above, element 36 of Gutelius is a first output as it is an output of gear 10 that is mounted at 32, and element 38 is a second output as it is an output 36. Notably the claim does not describe the relationship between the outputs, so an element can be considered an output so long as it receives torque from another element.
Applicant contends on page 8 that Gutelius does not disclose first and second ball ramps. However, Bach was relied upon to disclose this feature.
Applicant contends on page 8 that the combination of Bach and Gutelius would not teach one ball ramp receiving torque from a first output and another ball ramp receiving torque from a second output. However as currently mapped, each ball ramp receives torque from a respective output, at least.
Applicant’s argument directed to claim 3 is persuasive, and the rejection thereof withdrawn.
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 R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
