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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02-Mar-2026 has been entered.
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 1-3, 9, 11-12, 14, 16 and 18-20 are 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 independent claim 1, the phrase “so as to acoustically interact with the brake disk” was not included in the original specification and is considered new matter.
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 1-3, 9, 11-12, 14, 16 and 18-20 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.
Regarding independent claim 1, the phrases “a functional arrangement for attenuating airborne sound” and “so as to acoustically interact with the brake disk” are indefinite because it is unclear whether the “acoustically interact[ing]” is the same as “attenuating airborne sound.”
Regarding independent claim 1, the phrase “so as to acoustically interact with the brake disk” is indefinite because the original specification does not include this phrase thereby rendering it unclear what structure corresponds with this function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 11, 12, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krantz (US 2011/0214568).
Regarding independent claim 1, Krantz discloses a dust sheet (126) for a vehicle brake (see ¶ 0002; FIGS. 1-3), wherein the dust sheet comprises, at least in a section, two or more layers (see ¶ 0054) representing a functional arrangement for attenuating airborne sound generated at a point of engagement of a brake disk (310) with a brake pad (330, 331) (see ¶ 0054, dust sheet comprises two or more layers; see also FIG. 14, dust sheet (120) is located adjacent to point of engagement), wherein the dust sheet is arranged over a majority of a predetermined portion of a brake disk (310) (see FIG. 14; ¶ 0075) (note: claim recites a “majority of a predetermined portion of a brake disk” and not a majority of a brake disk; therefore, whichever portion of disk (310) that filter (120) covers is considered to be the “predetermined portion” of the brake disk) opposite to the point of engagement of the brake disk with the brake pad (see FIG. 14) and spaced from a surface of the brake disk so as to acoustically interact with the brake disk (see FIG. 14, dust sheet (120) is spaced a distance from the brake disk).
Regarding claim 11, Krantz discloses that at least one of the two or more layers comprises or consists of one or more of:- a temperature resistant plastic (see ¶ 0058), - a temperature resistant matrix material, in particular a textile-like matrix material.
Regarding claim 12, Krantz discloses that the dust sheet is devoid of metal (see ¶ 0058).
Regarding claim 14, Krantz discloses that at least one layer of the two or more layers is made from a material that is flexible and/or soft and/or designed as a textile- like fabric or web (see ¶ 0052).
Regarding claim 18, Krantz discloses a disk brake system (see Abstract; FIG. 5) comprising a dust sheet according to claim 1 (see claim 1, above), wherein the dust sheet is configured in such a way that its eigenfrequencies are different from eigenfrequencies of neighbouring brake components, in particular from eigenfrequencies of the brake disk (see ¶¶ 0052, 0053, 0055-0061). For example, Krantz teaches multiple embodiments of dust sheets being made from different materials and/or having different configurations (see ¶¶ 0052, 0053, 0055-0061). Because of the different constructions and different materials used, the various embodiments have different eigenfrequencies with respect to each other, wherein at least one of those eigenfrequencies would be different from an adjacent brake component.
Regarding claim 20, Krantz discloses that the predetermined portion of the brake disk comprises a portion of the brake disk opposite form a point of engagement of one or more brake pads (330, 331) with the brake disk (see FIG. 14; filter (120) covers a majority of a portion that is located opposite the brake pads).
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.
Claims 2, 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krantz (US 2011/0214568), as applied to claim 1, above and further in view of Tronnes et al. (US 2022/0152537).
Regarding claim 2, Krantz does not disclose that at least two adjacent layers of the two or more layers are arranged at a distance from each other to form one or more cavities.
Tronnes teaches a dust sheet (900) for a vehicle brake (see Abstract; FIG. 1) wherein at least two adjacent layers (910, 920) of the two or more layers are arranged at a distance (D) from each other to form one or more cavities (see FIG. 9, ¶ 0077).
It would have been obvious to replace the filter of Krantz with the filter of Tronnes to utilize a filter having improved dust loading which extends the useful life of the filter (see e.g. ¶¶ 0004, 0007).
Regarding claim 3, Tronnes teaches that a width of at least one cavity of the one or more cavities is at least 0.1 mm or at least 0.2 mm and/or at most 0.5 mm or at most 0.3 mm (see ¶ 0077).
Regarding claim 19, Krantz does not disclose a method for making a dust sheet according to claim 1, comprising additive manufacturing and/or joining at least two of the two or more layers, the additive manufacturing and/or joining comprising welding or gluing.
Tronnes teaches a method for making a dust sheet according to claim 1, comprising additive manufacturing and/or joining at least two of the two or more layers, the additive manufacturing and/or joining comprising welding or gluing (see ¶¶ 0039, 0073).
It would have been obvious to replace the filter of Krantz with the filter of Tronnes to utilize a filter having improved dust loading which extends the useful life of the filter (see e.g. ¶¶ 0004, 0007).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krantz (US 2011/0214568), as applied to claim 14, above and further in view of Jaqanathan et al. (US 2018/0169550).
Regarding claim 9, Krantz does not disclose that a thickness of at least one of the two or more layers is at least 0.2 mm or at least 0.4 mm or at least 0.5 mm and/or at most 1.2 mm or at most 1 mm.
Jaqanathan teaches a dust sheet (see Abstract) comprising at least one layer having a thickness of at least one of the two or more layers is at least 0.2 mm or at least 0.4 mm or at least 0.5 mm and/or at most 1.2 mm or at most 1 mm (see ¶ 0088).
It would have been obvious to configure the layer of Krantz to have a thickness of at least 0.2 mm or at least 0.4 mm or at least 0.5 mm and/or at most 1.2 mm or at most 1 mm to optimize the performance of the dust sheet (e.g. strength, air resistance, efficiency, and high dust holding capacity) (see Jaqanathan, ¶¶ 0003, 0004, 0088).
Regarding claim 16, Krantz does not disclose that the at least one layer that is made from a material that is flexible and/or soft and/or de-signed as a textile-like fabric or web has a thickness of at least 0.2 mm and/or at most 0.5 mm.
Jaqanathan teaches a dust sheet (see Abstract) comprising at least one layer made from a material that is flexible and/or soft and/or de-signed as a textile-like fabric or web has a thickness of at least 0.2 mm and/or at most 0.5 mm (see ¶ 0088).
It would have been obvious to configure the layer of Krantz to have a thickness of at least 0.2 mm and/or at most 0.5 mm to optimize the performance of the dust sheet (e.g. strength, air resistance, efficiency, and high dust holding capacity) (see Jaqanathan, ¶¶ 0003, 0004, 0088).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02-Mar-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant argues that in Krantz, “[t]here is no disclosure or suggestion in Krantz of attenuating airborne sound generated at the brake disk-pad engagement point, nor is there any teaching of an acoustic interaction between the structure and the brake disk for noise attenuation purposes” (see Amendment, pages 6-7).
It is noted that the present specification states that “[t]he two or more layers represent a functional arrangement for attenuating airborne sound emerging from the vehicle brake” (see present specification, page 1, lines 29-30). Therefore, the claim language “a functional arrangement for attenuating airborne sound generated at a point of engagement of a brake disk with a brake pad” is interpreted as only requiring a dust filter having two or more layers, wherein the dust filter is located over a majority of a predetermined portion of a brake disk. In Krantz, the dust filter comprises two or more layers (see ¶ 0054) and is located over a majority of a predetermined portion of a brake disk (see FIG. 14).
It is further noted that “[t]here is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference” (see MPEP 2112.II) (citing Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). As disclosed in the present application, a dust sheet having two or more layers provides the function of attenuating noises (see present specification, page 1, lines 29-30). Similarly, the dust sheet of Krantz has two more layers (see ¶ 0054) and therefore is inherently capable of attenuating noises.
Applicant further argues “[a]lthough the term ‘dust sheet’ is used in the present application, the claimed structure is directed primarily to brake noise reduction” (see Amendment, page 8). Claim 1, line 1, however, literally recites “A dust sheet . . . .” Thus, the claimed subject matter is clearly and unambiguously directed toward a dust sheet. Krantz similarly discloses a dust sheet (see ¶ 0075, “[t]he pollution trap 120 can be positioned such that it is exposed to a pollutant so that it can capture at least a portion of the pollutant for example, brake dust, generated from placing the brake pad 330 in contact with the braking surface 340 while the braking surface 340 is in motion”).
Applicant further argues that “the claimed feature that the dust sheet (1) is arranged over a majority of a predetermined portion of the brake disk (10) opposite to the point of engagement and spaced from the disk surface defines a functional acoustic relationship with the brake disk” (see page 8). Likewise, Krantz also discloses that the dust sheet (120) is arranged over a majority of a predetermined portion of the brake disk (340) (see FIG. 14, ¶ 0075) opposite to the point of engagement (330/340) (see FIG. 14), thereby establishing a functional acoustic relationship.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
March 19, 2026