DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement filed 9/6/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. NPL Document C1 is a German-language document that lacks an English language explanation of relevance, including letters such as “X” or “Y”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1-10, 14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 introduces “a roller bearing cage” (Line 4), then subsequently refers to “the roller bearing cage” (Line 5) and “the roller member cage” (Line 7). Dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 9 also refer to “the roller member cage”. It is unclear how the roller bearing cage and roller member cage reconcile.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the roller member cage has one or more locking elements which is/are in engagement with one or more corresponding locking elements of the bearing shell”. Claim 7 recites “wherein the one or more locking elements are resilient locking bars, and the one or more corresponding locking elements are one or more recess grooves”. It is unclear how the locking elements of claim 7 reconcile with the bearing shell locking elements and roller member cage locking elements.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the roller member cage has bearing pockets” (Line 2) and “a bearing pocket” (Line 4). It is unclear how many bearing pockets are required and how they reconcile.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the return element is arranged at an end of a guiding face”. As shown in Figure 7, the return elements (34) are located far from the guiding faces (38). It is unclear what this claim requires.
Claim 16 recites “a pivot lever arrangement according to claim 11”. It is unclear if an additional pivot lever arrangement is required. Assuming the applicant is only claiming dependency, the Examiner suggests changing “a pivot lever arrangement” to --the pivot lever arrangement--
Claim 18 recites “wherein each side of the pivot lever has only one lateral support of the bearing shell in the brake caliper, wherein an arrangement of the support locations is diagonally with respect to each other”. The corresponding disclosure in the specification recites “The pivot lever 30 is configured at both sides with one of the above-described roller member bearings. In this instance, according to FIGS. 10 and 11 each side has only one lateral support of the bearing shell 16 in the brake caliper 51, wherein the arrangement of the support locations are arranged diagonally with respect to each other” ([0074]). Figures 10 and 11 do not appear to show a single pair of diagonally-orientated, lever support points as seemingly required by the claim. It is unclear what the claim requires.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adamczyk et al (EP 3112718).
As per claim 1, Adamczyk et al discloses a pivot bearing (7) for supporting a pivot lever (4, 16) of an application apparatus (Abstract) of a disc brake (Abstract), comprising:
a curved bearing shell (12); and
a roller bearing cage (10) which is pivotably guided on the curved bearing shell,
wherein the roller bearing cage has at least one guiding vane (13) which protrudes axially with respect to a pivot axis and which has, at only one side, an axially extending stop face (13; [0044]) for returning the roller member cage.
PNG
media_image1.png
366
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 2, Adamczyk et al discloses the pivot bearing according to claim 1, wherein the stop face is formed as an edge of the guiding vane (13).
As per claim 3, Adamczyk et al discloses the pivot bearing according to claim 2, wherein another edge, which is opposite the stop face, of the guiding vane, is a vane reinforcement (Distal portion of driver 13, Fig. 9a) with a curved longitudinal extent.
PNG
media_image2.png
578
426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As per claim 5, Adamczyk et al discloses the pivot bearing according to claim 1, wherein the bearing shell is in engagement with the roller member cage (Abstract; 10, 12, Fig. 10b).
As per claim 8, Adamczyk et al discloses the pivot bearing according to claim 1, wherein the guiding vane is configured integrally with the roller member cage (13, 10, Fig. 10a).
As per claim 11, Adamczyk et al discloses a pivot lever arrangement (Fig. 2), comprising:
a pivot lever (4, 16) having a return element (8); and
a pivot bearing (7) having a curved bearing shell (12) and a roller bearing cage (10) which is pivotably guided thereon,
wherein the roller bearing cage has a guiding vane (13) which protrudes axially relative to a pivot axis, the guiding van has a stop face (13; [0044]) which, together with the corresponding return element formed on the pivot lever, has a purely single-sided stop (8, 13, Fig. 3; [0044]) for returning the roller bearing cage.
As per claim 12, Adamczyk et al discloses the pivot lever arrangement according to claim 11, wherein the return element is in the form of an increasingly tapering radial projection (8, Fig. 2, 3, 5; [0025]).
As per claim 13, Adamczyk et al discloses the pivot lever arrangement according to claim 12, wherein the return element has a contour (8, Fig. 2, 3, 5; [0025]) which runs out in a curved manner toward the tapered portion.
As per claim 14, Adamczyk et al discloses the pivot lever arrangement according to claim 11, wherein the return element is arranged at an end of a guiding face (5) for guiding the pivot lever within a brake caliper (Abstract) and is configured in an integral monolithic manner with a remainder of the pivot lever (8).
As per claim 15, Adamczyk et al discloses the pivot lever arrangement according to claim 11, wherein the return element is in the form of a milling runout (8).
As per claim 16, Adamczyk et al discloses an application apparatus (Abstract) of a disc brake (Abstract), comprising:
a brake caliper (Abstract); and
a pivot lever arrangement according to claim 11, which is supported in a contour (8, Fig. 2, 3, 5; [0025]) in the brake caliper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 4, 6-7, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamczyk et al (EP 3112718) in view of Katayama et al (US 2010/0187051).
As per claim 4, Adamczyk et al discloses the pivot bearing according to claim 1. Although Adamczyk et al discloses wherein the bearing shell extends over a continuous region of more than 80% of a longitudinal extent thereof in a curved plane (12, Fig. 9b), they do not disclose the composition of the bearing shell.
Katayama et al discloses a rocking bearing wherein the bearing shell is a sheet metal strip (12; [0063]), and the bearing shell extends over a continuous region of more than 80% of a longitudinal extent thereof in a curved plane (12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bearing shell of Adamczyk et al by forming it from a steel plate as taught by Katayama et al in order to provide a thin and strong bearing.
As per claim 6, Adamczyk et al discloses the pivot bearing according to claim 5, but does not disclose wherein the roller member cage has one or more locking elements which is/are in engagement with one or more corresponding locking elements of the bearing shell.
Katayama et al discloses a rocking bearing wherein the roller member cage has one or more locking elements (16d) which is/are in engagement with one or more corresponding locking elements (14, Fig. 4; [0067]) of the bearing shell. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bearing assembly of Adamczyk et al by providing the bearing shell and roller cage with interlocking protrusions as taught by Katayama et al in order to hold the assembly together while still permitting disassembly for repairs.
As per claim 7, Adamczyk et al and Katayama et al disclose the pivot bearing according to claim 6. Katayama et al further discloses wherein the one or more locking elements are resilient locking bars (16d), and the one or more corresponding locking elements are one or more recess grooves (14, Fig. 4; [0067]).
As per claim 9, Adamczyk et al discloses the pivot bearing according to claim 1. Although Adamczyk et al discloses roller members (11), they do not disclose bearing pockets or retention webs.
Katayama et al discloses a rocking bearing wherein the roller member cage has bearing pockets (16c) for supporting roller members (15), the bearing pockets have, for retaining the roller members, retention webs (16a) which are arranged at only one side on a bearing pocket. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roller cage of Adamczyk et al by retaining the roller members in a pocket and web arrangement as taught by Katayama et al in order to securing retain the roller bearings.
As per claim 10, Adamczyk et al and Katayama et al disclose the pivot bearing according to claim 9. Adamczyk et al further discloses wherein the roller members are bearing needles (11; [0034]).
10. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamczyk et al (EP 3112718) in view of Kazuyuki et al (GB 2442552).
As per claim 17, Adamczyk et al discloses the application apparatus according to claim 16, but do not disclose wherein the guiding face is part of or is arranged adjacent to a guiding horn-shaped member which is introduced into a recess inside the brake caliper when the pivot movement is carried out.
Kazuyuki et al discloses a disc brake wherein the guiding face is part of or is arranged adjacent to a guiding horn-shaped member (33) which is introduced into a recess (63a) inside the brake caliper when the pivot movement is carried out. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake assembly of Adamczyk et al by providing a lever-actuated slack adjuster as taught by Scherer et al in order to compensate for brake pad erosion.
11. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamczyk et al (EP 3112718) in view of Scherer et al (US 2021/0079964).
As per claim 18, Adamczyk et al discloses the application apparatus according to claim 16, but do not disclose wherein each side of the pivot lever has only one lateral support of the bearing shell in the brake caliper, wherein an arrangement of the support locations is diagonally with respect to each other.
Scherer et al discloses a disc brake application device wherein each side of the pivot lever has only one lateral support of the bearing shell in the brake caliper (11, 11c; [0040]), wherein an arrangement of the support locations is diagonally with respect to each other (11, 11c, Fig. 2a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lever and bearing assembly of Adamczyk et al by securing the bearing at diagonally-oriented points as taught by Scherer et al in order to distribute the load across a larger area.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Brake actuator levers
Philpott (US 2022/0080940).
Henning et al (US 2021/0041000).
Hassani et al (DE 102018122850).
Raveendrappa et al (US 2019/0329754).
Chen et al (US 2017/0211645).
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M BOWES whose telephone number is (571)270-0460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
STEPHEN M. BOWES IV
Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/STEPHEN M BOWES/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights