DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first repercutor recited in claim 3 must be shown (including a labeled reference number) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 8 and 9 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.
Re: claim 8. The phrase “a processing unit” is indefinite. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the processing unit of claim 8 is intended to be the same or different from the processing unit recited in claim 1. A similar issue exists with respect to the phrases “an adjuster”, “a shaft”, and “a device for monitoring wear”.
The remaining claim is indefinite due to its dependency from claim 8.
Claim limitation “a means of storing” recited in claim 8 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No corresponding structure is found in the disclosure Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 5339069 to Penner et al.
Re: claims 1, 10, 11, and 14. Penner et al. show in figures 1 and 8 and disclose in col. 9 lines 65-68 and col. 10 lines 31-43 a device for monitoring wear of friction material in a drum brake system, wherein the brake system comprises an adjuster 15 that moves a shaft 11 of the brake drum shown in figure 6, the monitoring device comprising: a) a sensor assembly 25 that senses a relative movement between the adjuster 15 and the shaft 11, with the sensor assembly positioned in the brake system as shown; and b) a processing unit 42 communicating with the sensor assembly to acquire data on the relative movement between the adjuster 15 and the shaft 11, the data on the relative movement between the adjuster 15 and the shaft 11 being correlated with the wear of the friction material as described in the above mentioned column and line sections.
Re: claim 2. Penner et al. disclose in col. 9 lines 64-66 wherein the relative movement between the adjuster 15 and the shaft 11 is an angular variation, in which the processing unit 42 performs said correlation of the relative movement data between the adjuster 15 and the shaft 11 with movement data related to the wear of the friction material.
Re: claim 8. Penner et al. show in figures 1 and 8 a system for monitoring wear of friction material in a vehicle provided with a drum brake system comprising an adjuster 15 that moves a shaft 11 of the brake drum, the monitoring system being characterized in that it comprising: a) a device for monitoring wear of friction material as defined in claim 1; and b) a means of storing 43 at least one movement data relating to the wear of friction material; wherein, a processing unit 42 of the monitoring device converts a data of the relative movement between the adjuster 15 and the shaft 11 into said movement data related to the wear of the friction material.
Re: claim 9. Penner et al. show in figures 1 and 8 and describe in col. 10 lines 38-42 wherein the monitoring device is communicative with a remote station 40, in which the remote station receives movement data related to the wear of the friction material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 3-7, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penner et al. in view of WO-2012069068 (WO’068).
Re: claims 3, 4, 12, and 13. Penner et al. show in figure 8 wherein the sensor assembly comprises a first repercutor 25 associated with the shaft 11 but is silent with regard to a second repercutor associated with the brake system.
WO’068 teaches in claim 17 the use of a sensor 22 associated with an adjuster lever in connection with an s-cam shaft in a drum brake system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the sensor assembly of Penner et al. to have included a second repercutor, in view of the teachings WO’068, in order to provide a means of more accurately detecting relative movement between the shaft and the adjuster and to provide a means of distinguishing between normal lining and lining wear and to help detect mechanical malfunction and excessive clearance.
Re: claim 5. Penner et al., as modified, teach in figure 5 of WO’068 wherein the second repercutor 22 comprises a sensing module positioned in a structure or the shown box at the end of the lead line of 22, in which the structure or box comprises a base or bottom surface associated with the adjuster 1 as shown in the left figure of figure 5, and a housing or the remaining surfaces of the box accommodating the sensing module in order to provide a means of protecting the sensing module from damage or debris.
Re: claims 6 and 7. Penner et al., as modified, teach in figure 5 of WO’068 wherein the housing or the surrounding surfaces of the box at the end of the lead line of 22 of the structure is fixed to the base or bottom surface and comprises an interface or intervening elements between the first repercutor and the second repercutor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References: EP-3135948, WO-2012130253, KR-20080111718, and US Patent Application 2002/0104720 to Borugian teach the use of similar drum brake assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally.
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.
mmb
September 5, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights