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
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, 4-7 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE-102015007523 (DE’523).
Re: claim 1. DE’523 shows in figures 2 and 4-6 a guide element for a disk brake system comprising: a brake anchor 20 shown in figure 2 with a guide groove or the part of the anchor surrounding element 12 shown in figure 3 which extends along an axial direction, and a brake pad arrangement shown in figure 3 which is adjustable relative to the brake anchor along the axial direction and which has a guide projection 12 protruding into the guide groove; wherein the guide element extends from a first end, as labeled, via a guide portion, as labeled, to a second end, as labeled, and the guide element has a fixing portion, as labeled, the fixing portion being
See Next Page.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fixing portion)][AltContent: textbox (3rd portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd portion)][AltContent: textbox (1st portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd plane )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st plane )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Connecting portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Guide portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second end )][AltContent: textbox (First end )][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
317
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
arranged at the second end and extending along a first extent direction which runs transversely with respect to the axial direction to a free end and the guide element has a connecting portion, as labeled, between the guide portion and the fixing portion as shown in the annotated version of DE’523 figure 5, the connecting portion extending along a second extent direction i.e. upward which runs transversely with respect to the axial direction and transversely with respect to the first extent direction as shown, and extending along the axial direction from a first plane, which runs perpendicular to the axial direction to a second plane which runs perpendicular to the axial direction, wherein the fixing portion, as labeled, comprises an elastically deformable spring segment as shown by virtue of it being disclosed as made of thin sheet metal configured to exert a retention force against opposing surfaces of a holding groove during axial displacement by virtue of the fixing portion’s side edges on either axial side of the fixing portion as functionally recited (Examiner notes that the holding groove is not positively recited, as broadly claimed), and wherein the fixing portion is spaced apart in an axial direction both from the first plane and from the second plane as shown.
Re: claim 2. DE’523 shows in figure 5 wherein the fixing portion and the connecting portion transition directly into one another as shown in the annotation.
Re: claim 4. DE’523 shows in figure 5 wherein the fixing portion has a curved shape shown in the area near the end of the lead arrow of the labeled fixing portion in annotated figure 5 such that the fixing portion deviates at least in certain portions along the second or upward extent direction from a planar extent shown at the fixing portion in figure 6 along a plane running perpendicular to the second extent direction, and wherein the curvature (i.e. particularly the side edges on either axial side of the curvature portion) is configured to preload the fixing portion against the holding groove to resist axial movement as functionally and broadly recited.
[AltContent: textbox (Projection on top surface of guide portion)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Planar extent)]
[AltContent: textbox (Portion of fixing portion between the third and fourth planes)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (4th plane plane)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (3rd plane)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
285
185
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re: claims 5 and 15. DE’523 shows in figure 6 wherein the guide portion has at least one projection, as labeled, which extends along the second or upward extent direction, away from a surface of the guide portion (the top surface of which) which surface extends along a plane running perpendicular to the second or upward extent direction.
Re: claims 6 and 16. DE’523 shows in figure 6 wherein the connecting portion has a first portion, as labeled, which extends along the axial direction from the first plane to the second plane and a second portion, as labeled, which is spaced apart in the axial direction from the first plane and from the second plane as shown.
Re: claims 7 and 17. DE’523 shows in figures 5 and 6 wherein the connecting portion, as labeled, has a third portion, as labeled, which extends along the second extent direction from a third plane, which runs perpendicular to the second extent direction, to a fourth plane, which runs perpendicular to the second extent direction, wherein the third plane and the fourth plane are arranged such that the fixing portion, as labeled, is, at least in certain portions, arranged between the third plane and the fourth plane as shown.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application 2020/0040953 to Baek.
Re: claims 1 and 2. Baek shows in figures 1 and 2A a guide element 50 for a disk brake system comprising: a brake anchor 30 shown in figure 1 with a guide groove or the part of the anchor surrounding element 22 which extends along an axial direction, and a brake pad arrangement shown in figure 1 which is adjustable relative to the brake anchor along the axial direction and which has a guide projection 22 protruding into the guide groove; wherein the guide element extends from a first end, as labeled, via a guide portion, as labeled, to a second end, as labeled, and the guide element has a fixing portion as labeled and including element 270, the fixing portion being arranged at the second end and the labeled portion of the fixing portion extending along a first extent direction Y which runs transversely with respect to the axial direction to a free end and the guide element has a connecting portion, as labeled, between the guide portion and the fixing portion as shown in the annotated version of Baek figure 2A, the connecting portion extending along a second extent direction i.e. upward which runs transversely with respect to the axial direction and transversely with respect to the first extent direction as shown, and extending along the axial direction from a first plane, which runs perpendicular to the axial direction to a second plane which runs perpendicular to the axial direction, wherein the fixing portion, as labeled and including element 270 comprises an elastically deformable spring segment 270 configured to exert a retention force against opposing surfaces of a holding groove 300 during axial displacement due to element 270’s side edges on either axial side of element 270, and wherein the fixing portion and particularly the part shown at the end of the lead arrow of the fixing portion label that is spaced apart in an axial direction both from the first plane and from the second plane as shown.
See Next Page.
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd plane formed by the tangent)][AltContent: textbox (1st plane
formed by the tangent)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Connecting portion)][AltContent: textbox (Fixing portion)][AltContent: textbox (Guide portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st end)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
526
399
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 4. Baek shows in figure 2A wherein the fixing portion has a curved shape shown in the area near the end of the lead arrow of the labeled fixing portion in annotated figure 2A such that the fixing portion deviates at least in certain portions along the second or upward/downward extent direction from a planar extent shown at 237 along a plane running perpendicular to the second extent direction.
Re: claim 6. Baek shows in figures 1 and 2A wherein the connecting portion has a first portion 245 which extends along the axial direction from the first plane to the second plane, and a second portion shown at the end of the connection portion arrow which is spaced apart in the axial direction both from the first plane and from the second plane as shown.
Re: claim 8. Baek shows in figures 1 and 3A a brake anchor 30 shown in figure 1 for a disk brake system shown in figure 1 and, comprising a guide groove 32 shown in figure 3A which extends along an axial direction and a brake pad arrangement shown in figure 1 at element 20 which is adjustable relative to the brake anchor along the axial direction and which has a guide projection 22 protruding into the guide groove, wherein the brake anchor has a guide portion, as labeled, which has the guide groove, said brake anchor has a connecting portion, as labeled, which adjoins the guide portion and which extends along the
See Next Page.
[AltContent: textbox (Surface pointing in 2nd extent direction)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Holding portion)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Connecting portion
7th plane)][AltContent: textbox (6th plane)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Guide portion)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
539
351
media_image4.png
Greyscale
axial direction from a fifth plane shown in the area near the end of the lead arrow of 33 in figure 3A, which runs perpendicular to the axial direction, to a sixth plane, as labeled, which runs perpendicular to the axial direction, and said brake anchor has a holding portion, as labeled which adjoins the connecting portion, and wherein the holding portion has a holding groove 300 which extends along a first extent direction from a first end shown at the end of the lead arrow of 300 in figure 3A to a second end 315 and which, at its second end, is open along the first extent direction and which is spaced apart in the axial direction both from the fifth plane and from the sixth plane as shown, wherein an extent of the holding groove in a direction from the fifth plane tapers toward a surface of the holding portion, which surface extends along a plane which is arranged perpendicular to the second extend direction and delimits the holding groove particularly as disclosed in paragraph [0096] in which at least one surface of the groove 300 that is slanted includes surface 310 and/or 320 shown in figure 3A.
Re: claim 9. Baek shows in figure 3A the limitation wherein the connecting portion has an abutment surface 305 which points or faces forward in the first extent direction, as best understood, and which extends along a seventh plane running perpendicular to the first extent direction, wherein the abutment surface and the second end of the holding groove transition directly into one another as shown.
Re: claims 10 and 18. Baek shows in figures 1 and 3A the limitation wherein an extent of the holding groove in a direction from the fifth plane to the sixth plane increases along a second extent direction i.e. goes from the bottom of the groove (low second extent direction position) sharply to the holding portion surface (high second extent direction position) via the side wall of the groove as broadly recited.
Re: claim 12. Baek shows in figures 1, 2A, and 3A a disk brake system having a guide element as claimed in claim 1, having a brake anchor 30 and having a brake pad arrangement 20 which is adjustable relative to the brake anchor along the axial direction and which has a guide projection 22 protruding into the guide groove or opening surrounding element 22 on component 30, wherein the fixing portion, as labeled, and particularly portion 270 of the guide element is, at least in certain portions arranged in a holding groove 300 of the brake anchor.
Re: claim 13. Baek shows in figures 1, 2A, and 3A wherein the fixing portion, as labeled, and the holding groove 300 each extend at least in certain portions along the axial direction such that the fixing portion and particularly portion 270 bears at least in certain portions against two mutually oppositely situated abutment surfaces 310, 320 that define the extent of the holding groove 300 in the axial direction as shown in figure 3A.
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of US Patent Application 2019/0353214 to Philpott et al.
Baek includes a surface, as labeled, pointing in the second or upward extent of the holding groove, has a surface texture, but is silent with regards to the surface texture being a roughness that corresponds to or is greater than a minimum roughness, wherein the minimum roughness corresponds to an average roughness value of 0.8 micrometers.
Philpott et al. teach in claim 6 the use of a brake anchor having a surface with a roughness that corresponds to or is greater than the average roughness value of 0.8 micrometers.
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 surface of the holding groove of Baek to have had a roughness corresponding to or being greater than the average roughness value of 0.8 micrometers, in view of the teachings of Philpott et al., in order to provide a means of more securely holding the protruding part of the clip to help prevent unwanted decoupling of the guide element from the brake anchor thereby improving the stability and durability of braking.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of US Patent Application 2014/0131148 to Plantan et al.
Baek shows in figure 3C the fixing portion, particularly portion 270 of the fixing portion, has a shape wherein the shape elastically preloads the fixing portion against the holding groove 300 to resist axial movement of the guide element relative to the brake anchor 30, but is silent with regard to the shape being curved such that the fixing portion deviates, at least in certain portions along the second extent direction, from a planar extent along a plane running perpendicular to the second extent direction.
Plantan et al. teach in figure 8a the limitation of a fixing portion 21 the shape being curved such that the fixing portion deviates, at least in certain portions along the second extent direction, from a planar extent along a plane running perpendicular to the second extent direction.
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 fixing portion of Baek to have been shaped as newly recited, in view of the teachings of Plantan et al., in order to provide compensate for manufacturing tolerances while maintaining a consistent holding force.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the DE’523 reference fails to disclose a fixing portion axially spaced from the connecting portion. Examiner disagrees and notes that annotated figure 5 of DE’523 shown on pg. 4 of the most recent non-final Office action shows the fixing portion, as modified, being axially spaced from the areas at the end of the labeled first plane and second plane by the small u-shaped gaps shown in figure 5. Applicant also argues that DE’523 does not show or disclose a fixing portion that retains a guide element in a holding groove. Examiner notes that the argument is more specific than the claim language. Claim 1 merely functionally recites that the fixing portion is configured to exert a retention force against surfaces of a holding groove. Finally, Applicant argues that DE’523 teaches plastic deformation which is contrary to the elastic deformation recited in claim 1 and that DE’523, therefore, teaches away from the claimed structure. Examiner first notes that the teaching away argument is not applicable to an anticipation rejection. Examiner additionally notes that an object under normal loading experiences elastic deformation before plastic deformation. The rejection of claim 14 using the DE’523 reference has been withdrawn since the claim has been amended to positively recite the elastic preloading of the fixing portion against the holding groove.
With regard to the use of Baek, Applicant argues that Baek fails to show a guide element having a fixing portion that retains the guide element on a brake anchor. To support his position Applicant argues that Baek shows a brake clip interacting with a brake pad carrier. However, Examiner notes that the brake clip of Baek is the guide element and the brake carrier is the brake anchor. Brake anchor and brake carrier are known to be used interchangeably in the disc brake art. Applicant further argues that the brake clip is not a guide element; however, Examiner disagrees since the clip provides a surface upon which a brake pad is guided as it moves along the brake carrier or anchor to the same extent as Applicant’s invention. Applicant argues that Baek fails to show the fixing portion being spaced apart in an axial direction from the connecting portion and particularly the first and second planes of the connecting portion. Examiner disagrees and directs Applicant’s attention to annotated figure 2A of Baek on pg. 9 of the most recent non-final Office action. In the annotated drawing the fixing portion, particularly the portion shown at the end of the lead arrow of the fixing portion label, is axially spaced from the labeled first and second planes. With regard to the rejection of claim 8 using Baek, Applicant continues to argue that the brake carrier is not a brake anchor. Examiner disagrees because it is old and well-known that the terms are used interchangeably in the disc brake art. Applicant next argues that Baek fails to show or disclose the holding groove being axially spaced from a fifth and sixth plane; however, the axial separation is clearly shown when viewing element 300 with respect to the labeled 6th plane and the 5th plane (that is opposite to the 6th plane). See annotated figure 3A on pg. 11 of the most recent non-final Office action. With regard to the rejection of claim 11 using Baek in view of Philpott Applicant argues that there is no holding groove in a brake anchor. Examiner disagrees and directs Applicant’s attention to element 300 maintaining the brake carrier is a brake anchor. Applicant further argues that no surface of the holding groove is shown, however, the various illustrated planes making up the holding groove are surfaces of the holding groove. With regard to the roughness limitation and only addressing the rejection with respect to Baek, 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). Philpott was relied upon to teach the surface roughness limitation. Applicant failed to address the use of the Philpott teaching. Accordingly, the above art rejections (other than the rejection of claim 14 using DE’523) have been maintained.
The previously presented 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the most recent amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
June 28, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights