Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/973,523

TEMPERATURE SENSOR AND DISC BRAKE HAVING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 25, 2022
Examiner
TORRES WILLIAMS, MELANIE
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
HL Mando Corporation
OA Round
3 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
628 granted / 742 resolved
+32.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
786
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
37.5%
-2.5% vs TC avg
§102
46.1%
+6.1% vs TC avg
§112
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 742 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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. Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (GB 2587782 A) in view of Frolov et al. (RU 2664980 C1). Re claim 15, Stevens teaches a disc brake (1) having a temperature sensor (5), the disc brake comprising: a plate-shape disc (15); a first brake bad pad and a second brake pad (7a, 7b) configured to press one side of one surface and one side of the other surface of the disc respectively a temperature sensor (5) including a housing (51), a temperature sensing module (52) fixed to the housing to sense a temperature; and a bracket (4, 54) fixing the housing spaced apart from the disc. Stevens teaches a connector element (53) capable of transmitting temperature information sensed by the temperature sensing module to the outside. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide an additional element at the controller (not shown in the drawings) as is well known in the art for transmitting signals. Stevens does not teach wherein a second surface is formed on one side of the outside and a third surface is formed on one side of the inside, a temperature sensing module fixed to the housing to sense the temperature of the third surface, and a bracket fixing the housing such that the second surface of the housing is positioned to be spaced apart at a third interval from a first surface position on the other side of the other surface of the disc. Frolov et al. teaches a temperature sensor (Fig. 3) including a housing (1) of which a second surface (10) is formed on one side of the outside and a third surface (5) is formed on one side of the inside, such that the second surface of the housing is capable of being positioned to be spaced apart at a third interval from a first surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the temperature sensor of Frolov in the device of Stevens in order to protect the sensor element. Re claim 16, Stevens as modified teaches wherein the bracket (4) fixes the housing such that the second surface is parallel to the first surface. (Sevens – Fig. 1, Frolov et al. – Fig. 3) Re claim 17, Stevens as modified teaches wherein the bracket (4) includes a first through hole (44), and the housing (51) is inserted into the first through hole. (Stevens – Fig.1) Stevens does not teach wherein the housing is to be coupled by screwing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to couple the housing of Stevens by screwing since it is a well known means for coupling cylindrical elements. Re claim 18, Stevens as modified teaches wherein the first through hole (44) penetrates the bracket (4) in a direction perpendicular to the first surface, and the housing moves back and forth in a direction perpendicular to the first surface in a rotation direction. (Stevens - Fig. 1.) Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-11 and 14 are allowed. Claim 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed December 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant argues that Frolov et al. does not each wherein the second surface of the housing is positioned to be spaced apart at a third interval from first surface position on the other side of the other surface of the disc. Stevens is relied upon for teaching “a bracket 54 fixing the housing of the sensor 5 spaced apart a third interval from a first surface position on the other side of the surface of the disk” as claimed. Frolov et al. is relied upon as a teaching of a sensor including “a housing having a third surface formed on one side of a first inner space formed to receive heat from the second surface”. Frolov teaches wherein the sensor can be used in various industries and allows for accurate temperature measurements without direct contact of the sensor element with the housing surface in order to protect the sensor element. The Examiner maintains that Frolov teaches solving the problem of protecting the sensor element within the housing and would be an obvious modification of Stevens to one of ordinary skill in the art. 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 MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM. 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. /MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3616 MTW February 10, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 25, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 05, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 15, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583421
DRUM BRAKE WITH ROTATABLE BRAKE SHOE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583547
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETECTING THE SPEED OF A BICYCLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577993
REDUCED PROFILE PISTON ADJUSTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570257
BRAKING SYSTEM FOR A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570370
CONTROL SYSTEM FOR HUMAN-POWERED VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+12.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 742 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month