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 .
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), wherein the dust sheet is arranged over a majority of a predetermined portion of a brake disk (310) of the vehicle brake (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 a point of engagement of the brake disk (310) with a brake pad (330, 331) (see FIG. 14) and spaced from a surface of the brake disk (see FIG. 14, dust sheet (120) is spaced a distance from the brake disk), wherein at least one structural parameter of the two or more layers selected from a group of structural parameters is tuned for attenuating airborne sound (see ¶ 0054, dust sheet comprises two or more layers), wherein the group of structural parameters consisting of a number of two or more layers (see ¶ 0054, dust sheet comprises two or more layers), a material of the two or more layers, and a thickness of the two or more layers, and wherein the dust sheet is configured in such a way that eigenfrequencies of the dust sheet are different form eigenfrequencies of the brake disk (see ¶¶ 0052, 0053, 0055-0061; Krantz teaches multiple embodiments of dust sheets being made from different materials and/or having different configurations – 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 the eigenfrequencies of 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, or 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 at least one of a flexible material, a soft material or a material as a textile-like fabric or web (see ¶ 0052).
Regarding claim 18, Krantz discloses a disk brake system (see Abstract; FIG. 14) comprising a dust sheet according to claim 1 (see claim 1, above), the brake disc (310) according to claim 1 (see FIG. 14), the brake pad (330, 331) according to claim 1 (see FIG. 14) and a brake caliper (335) (see e.g. FIGS. 14, 15).
Regarding claim 20, Krantz discloses that the bake pad comprises a plurality of brake pads (330, 331), and the predetermined portion of the brake disk comprises a portion of the brake disk opposite from respective points of engagement of the plurality brake pads (330, 331) with the surface of 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 one of: 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 at least one additive manufacturing or joining at least two of the two or more layers, the at least one additive manufacturing 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 has a thickness of at least 0.2 mm or a thickness of 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 11-Jun-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krantz (US 2011/0214568), Applicant argues that “[a]ny vibration or noise-related characteristics in Krantz are merely incidental and unintended byproducts of its filtration-focused design” (see Amendment, page 8).
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference” (see MPEP 2131). It is irrelevant whether the noise-related characteristics are “incidental” or “unintended byproducts.” The only relevant inquiry is whether each and every element as set forth in the claim is present.
Claim 1 recites that “at least one structural parameter of the two or more layers selected from a group of structural parameters is tuned for attenuating airborne sound, wherein the group of structural parameters [includes] a number of the two or more layers.” Thus, as recited in claim 1, the filter is tuned to attenuate airborne sound when two or more layers are present in the filter. Krantz discloses that two or more layers are present and is therefore inherently tuned for attenuating airborne sound (see ¶ 0054, dust sheet comprises two or more layers).
Regarding the eigenfrequencies of the dust sheet being different from eigenfrequencies of the brake disk, Krantz discloses that the dust sheet can be made from different materials, different numbers of layers, and different constructions (see ¶¶ 0054-0061). As such, the differing embodiments of the filter would have different eigenfrequencies from each other, and at least one of the embodiments would have a different eigenfrequency from the eigenfrequency of the brake disk.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
August 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights