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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments submitted on 09/21/2025 have been considered and entered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 12 and 14 have been amended and claim 3 has been canceled. Claims 1, 2 and 4-16 are now pending in the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 16 is 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 claim 16, the claim recites the brake pads being located on the surfaces of the rotating wheel of the vehicle in lines 3-5 of the claim. It is not clear how the brake pads are located on the surfaces of the wheel of the vehicle as recited in the claim. The examiner notes that it is known in the art that a pair of brake pads are usually located around a brake rotor that is coupled to a wheel of a vehicle. Therefore, the examiner believes that the applicant meant to recite the brake pads being located around the surfaces of the brake rotor that is coupled to the wheel of the vehicle and not the surfaces of the wheel as currently recited in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (JP 2015124811 A) in view of Yachi (WO 2015098781 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 14, Inoue discloses a brake device (Figs. 1-31) comprising:
a main braking caliper body (9);
a brake pad part including a first brake pad (11a in fig. 26) and a second brake pad (11b) that are arranged at one side and another side of the main braking caliper body and have first surfaces facing each other;
a main braking piston (45a, 45b, 46a, 46b) pressurizing second surfaces of the first brake pad and the second brake pad to shorten a distance between the first brake pad and the second brake pad;
a parking caliper body (10 in fig. 27) coupled to the main braking caliper body and including a locking part (29a in fig. 27) caught by the second surface of the first brake pad (11a); and
a parking piston (13 in fig. 30) installed on the parking caliper body and pressuring the second surface of the second brake pad, wherein, when the parking piston pressurizes the second brake pad, the locking part of the parking caliper body moves the first brake pad toward the second brake pad (note the abstract).
Inoue discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including a first accommodation part (23) but fails to disclose the first accommodation part included in the main braking caliper body includes a stopper having one side that is opened to expose at least a portion of the first brake pad, and another side limiting a movement range of the parking caliper body as recited in the claim. However, Yachi disclose a similar caliper body comprising a first accommodation part (23 in fig. 7) included in the main braking caliper body includes a stopper (note the thin wall member of the caliper body partially covering the portion (29 in fig. 7) of the floating caliper body (10) having one side that is opened to expose at least a portion of the first brake pad (11a), and another side limiting a movement range of the parking caliper body (29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to modify the main caliper body of Inoue to provide the stopper as taught by Yachi will provide extra support to the caliper body while protecting the braking members from being damaged by foreign object.
Re-claim 2, Inoue discloses the main braking caliper body includes:
the first accommodation part (23) that is located in a direction of the second surface of the first brake pad and into which the locking part of the parking caliper body is inserted; and
a second accommodation part (24a in fig. 30) that is located in a direction of the second surface of the second brake pad and including the parking piston positioned thereon.
Re-claim 4, Inoue discloses an upper surface of the main braking caliper body includes the open top portion (note the top view of the caliper body having an open portion where the pads 11a and 11b can be seen as shown in fig. 27), and wherein the parking caliper body includes an upper portion covering at least a portion the open top portion of the main braking caliper body and connecting the locking part and the parking piston.
Re-claim 5, Inoue discloses the main braking caliper body includes a guide hole extending in a direction parallel to a direction in which the parking piston moves,
wherein the parking caliper body includes a guide rod (48a and 48b in fig. 28) inserted into the guide hole, and
wherein the guide rod slides along the guide hole when the parking piston is driven.
Re-claim 7, Inoue discloses the main braking piston includes a first main braking piston (45a and 46a in fig. 31) pressuring the second surface of the first brake pad, and a second main braking piston (45b and 46b in fig. 30) pressuring the second surface of the second brake pad, and
wherein the first main braking piston and the second main braking piston operate symmetrically to each other.
Re-claim 8, Inoue discloses when the parking piston (13) is driven, the parking caliper body moves in a direction of the second brake pad with respect to the main braking caliper body (note the abstract).
Re-claim 10, Inoue discloses a pair of the second main braking pistons (45b and 46b in fig. 30) are provided in a perpendicular direction to a direction in which the pair of the second main braking pistons move, and wherein the parking piston (13) is located between the pair of second main braking pistons.
Regarding claim 11, Inoue discloses a parking motor (36 in fig. 27) located at an upper side of the parking piston and providing driving force to the parking piston; and
a pinion gear (gears disposed in the casing 37) transmitting force of the parking motor, wherein a rotation axis of the parking motor is parallel to a direction in which the parking piston is pressurized (note fig. 29).
Re-claims 13 and 15, Inoue discloses the main braking piston includes a first main braking piston pressuring the second surface of the first brake pad (11a), and a second main braking piston pressuring the second surface of the second brake pad (11b),
wherein the first main braking piston and the second main braking piston operate symmetrically to each other, and
wherein, when the parking piston (13) is driven, the parking caliper body moves in a direction of the second brake pad with respect to the main braking caliper body (note the abstract).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (JP 2015124811 A) in view of Yachi (WO 2015098781 A1), and further in view of Nessi et al. (US 2015/0021125 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Inoue discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including the guide rod but fails to disclose an assembly bolt coupling the guide rod to the parking caliper body as recited in the claim. However, Nessi et al. disclose a similar brake assembly comprising; a main caliper (2), a parking caliper unit (17), a guide pin (16 in fig. 5) disposed in a through hole of the mail caliper coupling the parking caliper unit to the main caliper via a screw (19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to modify the connecting members of Inoue with the teaching of Nessi et al. will provide positive connection of the parking caliper unit and prevent it from getting loose overtime.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (JP 2015124811 A) in view of Yachi (WO 2015098781 A1), and further in view of Wang (USD 2022/0212644 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Inoue discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including the displacement of the parking piston to apply the parking operation but fails to disclose when the parking piston is driven, an extension length of the parking piston corresponds to a sum of a moving distance of the second brake pad and a moving distance of the parking caliper body. However, Wang discloses a similar electronic parking caliper assembly comprising a parking piston, wherein when the parking piston is driven, an extension length of the parking piston corresponds to a sum of a moving distance of the second brake pad and a moving distance of the parking caliper body (note the displacement of the piston 51 in figs. 3-6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to apply the teaching of Wang to displace the parking piston of Inoue will provide a stronger clamping force ensuring a reliable braking application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2 and 4-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on some reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Inoue, the examiner notes that the floating caliper 10b is provided at the outer side end of the floating caliper 10b in a state in which the floating caliper 10b is supported so as to be capable of displacement in the axial direction with respect to the opposed piston caliper 9b. The claw portion 29a is disposed on the inner side of the housing concave groove 23a and at a portion in the circumferential direction between the turn-in side first outer piston 45a and the turn-out side first outer piston 46a. In other words, they each are independent caliper body. The examiner further notes that Inoue with the teaching of Yachi as set forth above discloses a stopper. Therefore, it is clear that the combination of the references as set forth above discloses all of the limitations as recited in the claims and thus the rejections are proper and valid.
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 MAHBUBUR RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-7218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 10pm EST.
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 5712727124. 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.
/MAHBUBUR RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616