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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits for application no. 18/838,320 filed on August 14th, 2024. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-23, 26, 28-29 and 35-38 are pending.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s claim to priority of application DE 10 2022 201 513.4 and DE 10 2022 212 689.0 filed on February 14th, 2022 and November 28th, 2022. Certified copies were received on August 14th, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 14th, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 16 (line 5), please change the recitation of “cooperates in a form-fitting manner with an associated abutment” to - - cooperates in a form-fitting manner with an associated abutment of the plurality of brake measuring abutments - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1 (line 5).
Regarding Claim 21 (lines 3-4), please change the recitation of “wherein the elastic element is provided on at least one of the housing, the closure the piston and the brake load sensor” to - - wherein the elastic element is provided on at least one of the housing, [[the]] a closure of the piston and the brake load sensor -- - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 23 (line 5), please change the recitation of “and the closure” to - - and [[the]] a closure - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 29 (lines 5-6), please change the recitation of “offset axially rearward of the brake measuring abutment” to - - offset axially rearward of one of the brake measuring abutments - - to correct minor informalities regarding antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 37 (line 4), please change the recitation of “inserting a mounting assembly into second opening” to - - inserting a mounting assembly into a second opening - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 37 (lines 6-7), please change the recitation of “in the cross-bore after mounting assembly is inserted” to - - in the cross-bore after the mounting assembly is inserted - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 37 (line 4).
Regarding Claim 38 (line 7), please change the recitation of “by a housing” to - - by [[a]] the housing - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 38 (line 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-23, 26, 28-29 and 35-36 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, in the recitation of “a brake load sensor assembly including a brake load sensor” the difference between the “brake load sensor assembly” and the “brake load sensor” is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could amend claims 1 and 6 to recite “brake load sensor [[assembly]]” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 6 (lines 3-4), in the recitation of “wherein the brake load sensor assembly is mounted in one of: a longitudinal bore defined by the housing and the cross-bore” it is generally unclear how the Applicant intends to defined the mounting location of the brake load sensor. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the brake load sensor
Regarding Claim 12 (lines 5-8), in the recitation of “cross bore mouths defined on opposing ends of the housing are spaced apart from each other I one having a largest cross bore inner diameter” it is generally unclear what Applicant intended to recite. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “cross bore mouths defined on opposing ends of the housing are spaced apart from each other [[I]], wherein one having a largest cross bore inner diameter” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 17 (lines 3-4), in the recitation of “wherein the bearing comprises a component which can be separately mounted on the piston, wherein the bearing is a snap ring” the difference between the “bearing” recited in claim 17, the “component” recited in claim 17 and the “snap ring” recited in claim 17 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the bearing is a snap ring which can be separately mounted on the piston
Regarding Claim 18 (lines 3-4), in the recitation of “wherein the bearing comprises a component which can be separately mounted on the housing, wherein the bearing is a closure” the difference between the “bearing” recited in claim 17, the “component” recited in claim 17 and the “closure” recited in claim 17 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the bearing is a closure which can be separately mounted on the housing
Regarding Claim 20 (lines 3-4), in the recitation of “wherein the elastic element comprises an elastomer ring” the difference between the “elastic element” recited in claim 20 and the “elastomer ring” recited in claim 20 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the elastic element is an elastomer ring” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claims 21-23, 26 and 28, in the recitation of “the piston” it is unclear which of the two pistons recited in claim 1 Applicant is referring to. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 11-23, 26, 28-29 and 35-36 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 22-23, 26, 28-29 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gadke (WO 2020/239586). Gadke was cited on the IDS August 14th, 2024. See translation provided to Applicant with this Office Action.
Regarding Claim 1, Gadke teaches a brake load measuring device (Figs. 1-4, “abutment” 4) for a motor vehicle brake comprising:
a housing (“cylinder” 5) having a plurality of brake measuring abutments (abutment portions of 5),
wherein the housing (5) is arranged non-rotationally and in alignment between two brake shoes (“brake shoes” 3, 2), and which serves as a bearing for the brake shoes (3, 2) which are arranged spaced apart and diametrically opposite one another (see Figs. 1 and 3),
wherein the housing (5) defines a cross bore (for receiving “pistons” 11) which is arranged aligned with respect to lateral brake shoe supports (see Figs. 1 and 3);
two pistons (left and right 11) are spaced apart from one another and coaxially movably guided in the cross bore (see Fig. 3), on each of which one of the brake shoes (3, 2) is seated (see Fig. 3); and
a brake load sensor assembly (at least “sensor housing” 9, “sensors” 17 and “pins” 14; see 112(b) rejection above) including a brake load sensor (17, 14) wherein the brake load sensor (17, 14) is inserted centrally (see Fig. 3) into the cross bore (for receiving 11) as a piston stop and in alignment between the pistons (11) in a displaceable manner such that the pistons (11) are seated on the brake load sensor (17, 14) in alignment and diametrically opposite each other (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Gadke teaches the brake load measuring device for a motor vehicle brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the brake load sensor (Fig. 3; 17, 14) comprises a sensor measuring component (17) which is one of multiple separate components (17, 14) and integral to the brake load sensor (17, 14),
wherein the sensor measuring component (17) is a load cell (17).
Regarding Claim 4, Gadke teaches the brake load measuring device for a motor vehicle brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the brake load sensor (Fig. 3, 17, 14) has an elastic spring body (“disk springs” 13).
Regarding Claim 6, Gadke teaches the brake load measuring device for a motor vehicle brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the brake load sensor-assembly (Figs. 3-4; 9, 17, 14; see 112(b) rejection above) is mounted in one of: a longitudinal bore (for receiving 9) defined by the housing (5) and the cross-bore (for receiving 11; see Figs. 3-4; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 7, Gadke teaches the brake load measuring device for a motor vehicle brake as claimed in claim 3,
wherein the sensor measuring component (Figs. 3-4, 17) is provided on, at or in the brake load sensor (17, 14) within the cross bore (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Gadke teaches the brake load measuring device for a motor vehicle brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the brake load sensor (Figs. 3-4; 17, 14) is a deformation body with defined elasticity and with defined shaping (see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 11, Gadke teaches the brake load measuring device for a motor vehicle brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the cross bore of the housing (Figs. 3-4; portion of 5 for receiving 11) is a through bore without a bottom (see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 22, Gadke teaches the brake load measuring device for a motor vehicle brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the piston (Figs. 3-4; 11) is assigned at least one anti-rotation safeguard means (see [0048] below; see Figs. 3-4) in order to avoid undesired rotation adjustment ([0048] – “As can be seen in more detail in Fig. 4, pins 14 protrude vertically from the inner ends of the pistons 11, which are guided in a longitudinal slot 15 in the step 12 and thus represent a rotation protection for the pistons 11”).
Regarding Claim 23, Gadke teaches the brake load measuring device for a motor vehicle brake as claimed in claim 22,
wherein the anti-rotation safeguard is directly or indirectly between one of:
the housing (5) and the piston (11), the brake load sensor (17, 14) and the piston (11); and the closure and the piston (11; see Figs. 3-4; see [0048] above).
Regarding Claim 26, Gadke teaches the brake load measuring device for a motor vehicle brake as claimed in claim 22,
wherein the anti-rotation safeguard acts on the piston (Fig. 3, 11) in a form-fitting manner, in order to avoid a relative rotation of the piston (11; see Fig. 3; see [0048] above).
Regarding Claim 28, Gadke teaches the brake load measuring device for a motor vehicle brake as claimed claim 1,
further comprising at least one centering means element (Figs. 3-4; “step” 12) is provided between the piston (11) and the brake load sensor (17, 14).
Regarding Claim 29, Gadke teaches the brake load measuring device for a motor vehicle brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the brake load sensor (Figs. 3-4; 17, 14) is offset axially rearward of the brake measuring abutment (see Fig. 3) to provide protection for the brake load sensor (17, 14).
Regarding Claim 35, Gadke teaches the brake load measuring device for a motor vehicle brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein, the motor vehicle brake is a drum brake (see Fig. 1) which is one of a vehicle service brake (see Fig. 1) and a vehicle combination brake, which additionally has an electric parking brake.
Regarding Claim 36, Gadke teaches the brake load measuring device for a motor vehicle brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein, the motor vehicle brake is a drum brake (see Fig. 1) which is one of a simplex brake (see Fig. 1), a servo brake (see Fig. 1), and a dual-mode drum brake (see Fig. 1).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadke (WO 2020/239586), in view of Flanigan (US 1,678,427).
Regarding Claim 2, Gadke teaches the brake load measuring device as claimed in claim 1.
Gadke does not teach “wherein the brake shoes, clamp the brake load sensor between one another, indirectly via the pistons, with an elastic preload force at least in a released brake state” (emphasis added). In other words, Gadke does not explicitly disclose a return spring.
Flanigan teaches brake shoes (Fig. 1, “brake shoes” 19, 18) comprise an elastic preload force (via “brake retractile springs” 32 and 33) in a released brake state (line 105 – “Brake retractile springs 32 and 33 connected between opposite brake shoes by means of the hooks 34 serve to release the brakes and prevent them from dragging on the drum”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the brake shoes taught by Gadke with the return springs taught by Flanigan, such that “wherein the brake shoes, clamp the brake load sensor between one another, indirectly via the pistons, with an elastic preload force at least in a released brake state”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of preventing drum brake drag.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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 rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims ---37-38 are allowed.
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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Hazelden (US 4,995,480), von Hayn (US 11,578,772), Son (US 12,571,444) and Yun (KR 10-2013-0031940) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" disclose similar drum brakes comprising brake load sensors related to various aspects of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights