DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements have been received and considered.
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 braking device including a first housing and surrounding an open cavity, and a second braking device having a second housing and devoid of an opening, as claimed in claim 1 , the first and second braking devices , as claimed in claim 11, the fluid connectors, as claimed in claim 17 must be shown and numerically identified 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 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 1-20 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 claim 1 it is unclear from the specification and drawings where the following features are seen in the drawings:
the first braking device including a first housing and surrounding an open cavity, and a second braking device having a second housing and devoid of an opening, as claimed in claim 1 , the first and second braking devices , as claimed in claim 11, the fluid connectors, as claimed in claim 17.
These features should be identified in the specification and labeled numerically in the drawings for increased clarity (and easy identification) should the device mature into a patent.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright 2,728,420 in view of Lee 9,090,142 and Filderman 4,064,974.
Regarding claim 17 Wright shows a brake system that includes a disc 2, a first braking device 11 to contact the disc to resist rotation of onc of the plurality of wheels, and a second braking device 14 (see fig 2) to contact the disc 2 to resist rotation of one of the plurality of wheels that is circumferentially spaced from the first braking device around the disc, and a pair of fluid connectors (appear to be at 21 for the hydraulic lines 20 however these are not discussed in the spec) are arranged radially inward of an inner diameter of the disc and circumferentially between the first braking device and the second braking device around the disc.
Lacking in Wright is a specific description of using the brake device with an electric vehicle.
Also while there appears to be fluid connectors at 21 meeting the claimed limitations, these have not been discussed.
The reference to Lee shows an electric vehicle having a wheel with an electric motor 12 therein and a brake caliper at 39. See fig 2.
The reference to Filderman also shows a dual brake device having fluid connectors for the lines 45,46 (see fig 2). The connectors are shown in fig 1 (not labeled) but to the left of numeral 25 meeting the claimed limitations.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used the brake caliper arrangement of Wright with an electric vehicle, as taught by Lee, since Lee indicates that electric vehicles also use caliper type brakes (in this case with a heavy electric vehicle).
Also one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize elements 21 in Wright as fluid connectors (as broadly claimed) in view of Filderman figure 1.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright/Lee/Filderman as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Ishikawa 4,016,533.
Regarding claim 18 it would have been obvious to have provided the brake device of Wright with a connector for a low voltage cable (i.e. for a brake pad wear sensor arrangement), as taught by Ishikawa in figures 1 and 4. It would also have been obvious to have connected this connector arrangement to the back of the brake caliper. Although not applied see the connector arrangement in Thompson 5,513,726.
Allowable Subject Matter
ClaimS 1-16 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 ), 1ST paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
ClaimS 19,20 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 ), 1ST paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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
10/13/26
