DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure statements have been received and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 it is unclear what the difference is between the first and second actuating arrangements 3a,3b as they appear to be one assembly.
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1 applicants have double claimed the actuating arrangements and the pistons-piston assemblies. This renders the claim confusing and difficult to interpret.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6,11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albright 2,925,889 in view of GB 2,197,701 A.
Regarding claim 1, subject to the 112 1st and 2nd rejections above (and as best understood) Albright shows a multi-piston system 22 in fig 2 for a vehicle brake mechanism that is capable of disengagement comprising:
an annular housing (41,42), wherein the annular housing has a main axis (15), wherein the main axis defines an axial direction wherein the annular housing (41,42) comprises a plurality of (circumferentially arranged) housing “sections” (as broadly claimed –41,42), wherein a pressure chamber (28) which can be filled and/or is filled with a fluid is arranged in each housing section having a plurality of hydraulic actuating arrangements (22,23), wherein each actuating arrangement has a piston assembly (22,23) with a hydraulically movable piston (22,23) wherein the respective piston can carry out an actuating stroke for introducing an actuating force into a brake device (24-26) of the brake mechanism when subjected to hydraulic pressure, characterized in that each housing section is assigned a first actuating arrangement (3a) having a first piston assembly (22) and a second actuating arrangement (3b) having a second piston assembly (23), wherein the first piston assembly comprises a first piston 22 and the second piston assembly comprises a second piston 23..
Lacking in Albright is a specific statement of how the brake disengages. However there must be some type of disengagement system within the brake for it to function properly.
Nevertheless the GB Publication ‘701 shows a structurally similar type of brake to that of Albright and indicates at least in the abstract that a disengagement system exists.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious that some type of disengagement system/mechanism must exist in the brake device of Albright for it to be able to release and function as intended.
Regarding claim 2 Albright shows exactly one pressure chamber (28) is arranged in each housing section (41,42), wherein the first piston 22 and the second piston 23 are arranged to be hydraulically movable in the pressure chamber (28).
Regarding claim 3, as broadly claimed, Albright shows the first piston 22 can carry out the actuating stroke in the pressure chamber 28 in the axial direction 1 and that the second piston 23 can carry out the actuating stroke in the pressure chamber 28 in an axial opposite direction.
Regarding claim 4, as broadly claimed, Albright shows that the pressure chamber 28) comprises a first pressure chamber section (as broadly claimed—i.e. the small area of chamber 28 to the right of the seal in which piston 22 can translate) and a second pressure chamber section (same as above) wherein the first pressure chamber section is fluidically connected to the second pressure chamber section wherein the first piston (22) is arranged to be hydraulically movable in the first pressure chamber section and wherein the second piston (23) is arranged to be hydraulically movable in the second pressure chamber section.
Regarding claim 5, as broadly claimed, Albright shows in that a plane perpendicular to the main axis is arranged between the first pressure chamber section) and the second pressure chamber section wherein the first actuating arrangement and the second actuating arrangement are arranged or formed opposite one another or in mirror image with respect to the plane, or wherein the first actuating arrangement and the second actuating arrangement are arranged axially or radially offset from one another with respect to the plane.
Regarding claim 6, as broadly claimed, Albright shows that the multi-piston disengagement system (1) comprises a pressure transmission device 25,27 for transmitting or introducing the actuating force transmitted by the second piston (23) to/into a disc pack arrangement (64,65) of the brake device .
Regarding claims 11-16, as explained above, these limitations are met.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 17 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.
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
8/17/26
Prosecution Insights