DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 09/24/25 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-18 are currently pending, with claims 2 and 13 being cancelled. Despite the claim amendments are Applicant’s arguments, all rejections are maintained as detailed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the intermediate element comprising the stop” is unclear as to whether: (1) the intermediate element is composed of multiple elements including the stop; or (2) the stop is separate from and physically contained within the intermediate element. Typically, in patent claim language, when a component “comprises” an element, it means that the component is composed of multiple parts, including the element. Applicant has used the term “comprises” in this manner in the preamble – “the vehicle brake system comprises: a frame, a brake pad,…a piston device,…a retractor,…and a stop…” Apparently, Applicant takes issues with this construction with regard to the claim 1 recitation of “the intermediate element comprising the stop.” See Remarks, page 7. Applicant wishes to apply the 2nd interpretation of “comprising” discussed above – that the stop is a “separate element from” the intermediate element and is contained within the intermediate element. See Remarks, page 7. This is an unusual use of the terminology, but will be accepted for the purpose of moving prosecution forward.
Appropriate correction is strongly suggested to avoid this ambiguity.
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.
Armstrong
Claim(s) 1, 3-10 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Armstrong (U.S. Patent No. 2,926,757). Armstrong is directed to a disc brake. See Abstract. Note: this is an “X” reference in the cited ISA Written Opinion.
Claim 1: Armstrong discloses a vehicle brake system [Fig. 2], wherein the vehicle brake system comprises: a frame (8), a brake pad (12), the brake pad being moveable relative to the frame between a braking position and a retracted position, a piston device (11, 26), the piston device being moveable over an operational stroke to move the brake pad from the retracted position into the braking position, wherein the piston device comprises a first engagement surface (surface of 11 axially opposite 27), a retractor (25), the retractor being adapted to move the piston device over a return stroke, thereby moving the brake pad from the braking position into the retracted position, a stop (27, 28), the stop being in engagement with the first engagement surface of the piston device at the end of the return stroke, the stop is arranged to prevent movement of the first engagement surface past the stop in the direction of the return stroke, the stop is moveable by the piston device in the direction of the operational stroke of the piston device [see col. 3, line 75 (due to “friction collar 29”)], and the piston device further comprises a second engagement surface (right/top-surface of 26) adapted to engage the stop at an end of the operational stroke, and an intermediate element (29 or 27) [see claim objection above], the intermediate element comprising the stop [see id.], and the intermediate element being moveably arranged into a housing (14, 9). See Fig. 2.
Claim 3: Armstrong discloses that the stop is moveable by the second engagement surface of the piston device in the direction of the operational stroke when the operational stroke is longer than the return stroke. See col. 3, line 75 (when 26 exerts enough force on 27 it shifts due to “friction collar 29”)]; see also Fig. 2.
Claim 4: Armstrong discloses that the first engagement surface of the piston device is spaced apart from the stop when the piston device is in an intermediate position in the return stroke, an intermediate position in the operational stroke, and at the end of the operational stroke. See Fig. 2.
Claim 5: Armstrong discloses that the retractor is adapted to force the first engagement surface of the piston device against the stop with a pre-tensioning force and to maintain this pre-tensioning force while the piston device is at the end of the return stroke. See Fig. 2.
Claim 6: Armstrong discloses that the vehicle brake system further comprises a drive which is adapted to apply a drive force on the piston device in order to move the piston device over the operational stroke, and wherein the retractor is adapted to apply a retraction force onto the brake pad and/or on the piston device during the return stroke, and wherein the drive force is larger than the retraction force. See col. 3, line 70.
Claim 7: Armstrong discloses that the stop is slidably mounted in a housing, wherein a static friction force is present between the stop and the housing, which static friction force is smaller than the drive force and larger than the retraction force. See col. 3, line 75 (due to “friction collar 29”)]; see also Fig. 2.
Claim 8: Armstrong discloses that the vehicle brake system further comprises a locking device (14) which is adapted to prevent movement of the stop in the direction of the return stroke.
Claim 9: Armstrong discloses that the locking device is or comprises one of the following: a wedge, a double louvre, a linear backstop, a one way freewheel clutch, a rod having one-directional self-locking thread, a flexible seal. See Fig. 2 (14 is a linear backstop).
Claim 10: Armstrong discloses that the retractor is or comprises a spring, a hydraulic device, a pneumatic device, a magnetic device, an electric device and/or an electromagnetic device. See Fig. 2 (25 is a spring).
Claim 13: Armstrong discloses that the vehicle brake system further comprises an intermediate element, which intermediate element (27) comprises the stop, which intermediate element is moveably arranged into a housing. See Fig. 2.
Claim 14: Armstrong discloses that the retractor is arranged between the piston device and the intermediate element. See Fig. 2.
Claim 15: Armstrong discloses that the vehicle brake system further comprises a rotatable wheel part (3), and wherein in the braking position the brake pad engages the rotatable wheel part. See Fig. 2.
Claim 16: Armstrong discloses a vehicle, which vehicle comprises: a wheel (1) which is provided with an in-wheel motor, which in-wheel motor comprises a rotor (3), a vehicle brake system according to claim 1, wherein in the braking position the brake pad engages the rotor of the in-wheel motor. See Fig. 2.
Claim 17: Armstrong discloses a vehicle, which vehicle comprises: a wheel (1) which is provided with a brake disk (3), a vehicle brake system according to claim 1, wherein in the braking position the brake pad engages the brake disk. See Fig. 2.
Claim 18: the Armstrong vehicle brake system is to be used in a “wheeled vehicle,” which may include a “trailer.” This is an intended use, not a structural limitation of the claimed brake system.
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.
Armstrong in view of Rumelin
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong in view of Rumelin (U.S. Patent No. 3,200,911). Rumelin is directed to a hydraulic cylinder assembly for disc brakes. See Abstract. Note: this is an “X” reference in the cited ISA Written Opinion.
Claim 11: Armstrong is relied upon as in claim 1 above, but does not disclose the limitations of this claim, specifically, the piston device extending through an opening of the stop. Rumelin discloses a similar vehicle brake system, wherein the piston device (9, 13) extends into a housing (1), and wherein the stop (11, 11a, 14, 15) comprises a ring (11, 11a) having a central annular opening, which ring is friction mounted (via 14) inside the housing and onto an inner wall of the housing, wherein a part of the piston device extends through the annular opening of the ring, with the ring being arranged between the first engagement surface (shoulder of 9 that engages top of 11) of the piston device and the second engagement surface (top of 13, which engages bottom of 11/11a) of the piston device, wherein the ring comprises a first annular surface (top of 11) which is arranged to engage the first engagement surface of the piston device at the end of the return stroke and a second annular surface (bottom of 11/11a) on the opposite side of the ring with regard the first annular surface, which second annular surface is arranged to engage the second engagement surface of the piston device at the end of the operational stroke when the operational stroke is longer than the return stroke. See Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Armstrong in this manner because it would be obvious to try -- two possibilities/embodiments exist here: either the stop is radially interior to the piston device (as seen in Armstrong, and Rumelin Figure 1), or the stop is radially exterior to the piston device (as seen in Rumelin Figure 2). Rumelin’s Figure 1 is strikingly similar to Armstrong in employing a stop (4,8) located on the radial interior of the piston device (2, 3) and connected via a rod (8) through the center of the housing (1), with the stop axially pre-tensioned by a spring (5) to abut top and bottom interior surfaces of the piston device. See Fig. 1. Rumelin demonstrates that these two embodiments in Figures 1 and 2 ultimately perform the same function and achieve the same objective, hence applying the embodiment of Rumelin Figure 2 would be an acceptable alternative design choice.
Claim 12: Armstrong discloses that the retractor is arranged in the housing. See Fig. 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the 102 rejection of amended claim 1, which now incorporates claim language from claims 2 and 13 regarding the “second engagement surface” and “intermediate element,” because Armstrong’s “intermediate element” 27 is not “a separate element from” the stop. See Remarks, page 7.
In response, as stated in the Claim Objections above, the phrase “the intermediate element comprising the stop” is unclear as to whether: (1) the intermediate element is composed of multiple elements including the stop; or (2) the stop is separate from and physically contained within the intermediate element. Typically, in patent claim language, when a component “comprises” an element, it means that the component is composed of multiple parts, including the element. Applicant has used the term “comprises” in this manner in the preamble – “the vehicle brake system comprises: a frame, a brake pad,…a piston device,…a retractor,…and a stop…” Apparently, Applicant takes issues with this construction with regard to the claim 1 recitation of “the intermediate element comprising the stop.” See Remarks, page 7. Applicant wishes to apply the 2nd interpretation of “comprising” discussed above – that the stop is a “separate element from” the intermediate element and is contained within the intermediate element. See Remarks, page 7. This is an unusual use of the terminology, but will be accepted for the purpose of moving prosecution forward.
Armstrong’s friction collar 29 can meet the limitation of an “intermediate element” that physically contains the “stop” (27, 28), such that the stop is a separate element from, and is within, the intermediate element. This “intermediate element” (29) can also be “moveably arranged into a housing” (14, 9), due to the threaded connection therebetween. See Fig. 2.
The recited claim language, aside from being slightly unclear, is also fairly broad. It is strongly suggested that Applicant provide substantive amendments to further define the specific structure of the “stop” and how it interacts with the “piston device” to overcome the prior art of record.
For the foregoing reasons, all pending claims remain rejected as detailed above.
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 VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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 on 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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 September 29, 2025