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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/6/2024 has been considered.
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 11-14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (U.S. 2015/0114769).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses (figs. 4 and 6) A brake unit (100) for mounting on a wheel of a motor vehicle (abstract and pghs. 0002-0004), comprising:
an axially movable brake element (50); and a drive device (120/130/140 etc.) configured to selectively move the brake element axially; wherein brake element is configured as an axially movable brake piston (150) that is coupled to the drive device in a force-transmitting manner using a hydraulic transmission (see claims 1-4 at least).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses (figs. 4 and 6) the hydraulic transmission is configured using a drive piston (160) which is provided in addition to the brake piston and is guided in an axially movable manner in a drive housing (170).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses (figs. 4 and 6) the drive piston has a drive piston diameter (as shown) and the brake piston has a brake piston diameter (as shown) which differs from the drive piston diameter (as shown), wherein the brake piston diameter is larger than the drive piston diameter (as shown).
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses (figs. 4 and 6) the drive piston is configured such that the drive piston can selectively be moved into the drive housing and moved back out of the drive housing using the drive device (fig. 4 vs. fig. 6 as shown).
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses (figs. 4 and 6) the drive device includes a drive motor (120), and a gearing (130) that can be driven by the drive motor (as shown).
Regarding claim 20, Kim discloses (figs. 4 and 6) A method of using a brake unit, comprising the following steps:
mounting the brake unit on a wheel of a motor vehicle (fig. 1 at least), the brake unit including: an axially movable brake element (50), and a drive device (120/130/140 etc.) configured to selectively move the brake element axially (fig. 4 vs. fig. 6), wherein brake element is configured as an axially movable brake piston (150) that is coupled to the drive device in a force-transmitting manner using a hydraulic transmission (see claims 1-4 at least); and using the brake unit on the wheel (see fig. 1 and abstract and pghs. 0002-0004 at least).
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 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. 2015/0114769) in view of Fujita et al. (U.S. 4257496).
Regarding claim 15, Kim does not appear to disclose a spring element. In the same field of endeavor of disc brakes, Fujita teaches (fig. 1) a disc brake including a brake piston (8), drive piston (15), wherein the drive piston is configured such that the drive piston can be moved against a drive direction using a spring element (14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the spring element to move the drive piston against a drive direction as suggested by Fujita to aid in returning the drive piston back to its initial position, thereby improving the speed that the brake can release at.
Regarding claim 17, Kim does not appear to disclose a pressure compensation device. In the same field of endeavor of disc brakes, Fujita teaches (fig. 1) a pressure compensation device (23) is provided, which is hydraulically connected to the drive device (via ports 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the pressure compensation device as suggested by Fujita to contain additional oil as needed for actuating the brake piston, as more oil is needed to actuate the brake as the friction material of the brake pad wears down.
Regarding claim 18, Kim as modified teaches the pressure compensation device is configured with a pressure compensation membrane (Fujita fig. 1, 24 at least, or the inner wall of 23)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. 2015/0114769) in view of Matsushita (EP 3805590 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses (pgh. 0061) a first sensor is provided and coupled to the drive device (pressure sensor between spindle 140 and gear unit 130). However, Kim does not appear to disclose a second sensor. In the same field of endeavor, Matsushita teaches (fig. 1) a disc brake including a drive piston (36), a brake piston (32) and a sensor 37 such as a thermistor (see pgh. 0048). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the temperature sensor of Matsushita to the brake unit of Kim to additionally detect the temperature of the brake fluid for safety purposes, such as detecting if the brake fluid is approaching its boiling point.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the PTO-892 disclose various disc brakes with multiple pistons, and other related concepts to the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights