DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed June 8, 2026 has been received and considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 of the claim, the word “a” should be deleted for the claim to read more clearly. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 10, 13, 14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,784,591 to Franz et al in view of German Patent No. DE 19954309 to Ammon et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Franz et al disclose a brake pad 20 for a disk brake system (see Figures 2 and 4A) having most all the features of the instant invention including: a back plate 21 having a front side for facing a brake disk of the disk brake system (see Figure 2) and a friction layer (see Figure 2 and the friction layer of pad 20) arranged on the front side of the back plate 21 for contacting a friction surface of the brake disk, wherein the back plate 21 comprises a guiding protrusion 28 configured to be slidably received within a guiding recess 30 of a carrier 11 of the disk brake system (see Figure 4A), and a back plate body 27, and wherein the guiding protrusion 28 is a sphere (see Figure 4A and the top surface of element 28, which is curved and spherical).
However, Franz et al do not disclose that the guiding protrusion and the back plate body are formed as joined parts, and wherein the guiding protrusion is at least one of screwed to the back plate body, plugged into the back plate body, or welded to the back plate body.
Ammon et al are relied upon merely for their teachings of a brake pad 4 with a back plate 3 comprising a back plate body, wherein a guiding protrusion 7/9 and the back plate body are formed as joined parts (see Figure 1 and the abstract) and the guiding protrusion 7/9 is plugged into the back plate body 3 (see Figure 1 and page 3 of the examiner provided translation, second full paragraph – the last full paragraph of the page).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the guiding protrusion of Franz et al to be formed as a joined part with the back plate body, wherein the guiding protrusion is plugged into the back plate body, as taught by Ammon et al as an alternate way of forming the back plate structure. Designing the guiding protrusion and the back plate body to be joined parts and fit within one another allows for easier assembly or disassembly of the back plate with respect to the carrier.
Regarding Claim 2, Franz et al., as modified, further disclose that the back plate 21 comprises a back plate body 27, wherein the guiding protrusion 28 of the back plate 21 protrudes in a tangential direction from the back plate body 27 (see Figure 3 of Franz et al).
Regarding Claim 4, Franz et al., as modified, disclose most all the features of the instant invention as applied above, and further including that guiding protrusion 28 defines a tip portion 34 (see Figure 4A and the top tip portion of element 34).
However, Franz et al., as modified, do not disclose that the tip portion has a radius of curvature of at most 5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the tip portion of the bulging portion of Franz et al., as modified, to have a radius of curvature of at most 5 mm as a matter of design preference dependent upon the desired degree of engagement between the bulging portion and the recess of the carrier. As long as the bulging portion fits within the carrier recess, its exact radius of curvature is arbitrary.
Regarding Claim 10, Ammon et al are further relied upon for their teachings of a brake pad 4 with a back plate 3, wherein at least a part of a surface area of the guiding protrusion 9/7 of the back plate 3 is formed by or covered with a non-stick material (see page 3 of the examiner provided translation, second full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a surface area of the bulging portion of Franz et al to be formed by or covered with a non-stick material as taught by Ammon et al in order to allow the bulging portion to move slightly within the carrier recess but only with low frictional forces therebetween.
Regarding Claim 13, Franz et al., as modified, further disclose a disk brake system comprising a brake pad 20 according to Claim 1 and the carrier 11, wherein the brake pad 20 is configured to slide with respect to the carrier 11 in an axial direction upon brake application.
Regarding Claim 14, Franz et al, as modified, further disclose that the gap width between the guiding protrusion 28 of the back plate 21 and an adjacent part of the disk brake system is present (see Figures 2 and 4A of Franz et al).
However, Franz et al., as modified, do not disclose the gap width is at most 0.8 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the gap width between the guiding protrusion of the back plate in the region of the bulging portion and the adjacent part of the disk brake system of Franz et al., as modified, to be 0.8 mm as a matter of design preference dependent upon the desired degree of engagement between the guiding protrusion and the carrier recess thereof. As long as the guiding protrusion/bulging portion fit within the carrier recess, the gap width between the parts is arbitrary.
Regarding Claim 16, Franz et al., as modified, further disclose that the guiding recess 30 of the carrier 11 has a concave guiding surface (see Figure 4A of Franz et al and the outermost rounded edges of recess 30) delimiting the guiding recess in a tangential direction.
Regarding Claim 17, Franz et al., as modified, further disclose that the guiding recess 30 of the carrier 11 has flat guiding surfaces (see Figure 4A of Franz et al and the flat surfaces of recess 30 on either side of element 42) delimiting the guiding recess in positive and negative radial directions.
Regarding Claim 18, Franz et al., as modified, further disclose that the guiding recess 30 of the carrier 11 is formed by a half cylindrical recess (see Figure 4A of Franz et al and the rounded cylindrical portions of recess 30).
Regarding Claim 19, Franz et al., as modified, further disclose a pad spring 22 arranged at least in part between the guiding protrusion 28 of the back plate 27 and the guiding recess 30 of the carrier (see Figure 4A of Franz et al).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Firstly, applicant argues that Franz et al provide no technical motivation or suggestion to modify the guiding protrusion and the back plate (i.e., an integral structure) into separate joined parts as claimed in amended Claim 1. In particular, applicant argues that Ammon et al and its element 7 is a coupling element, not a guiding protrusion and it serves to compensate for movement of the pad holder so that movement of the pad holder does not generate friction on the support surface of the support device 6, which is due to the coupling element 7 rotating around a tilt axis.
In response to this, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Element 7/9 of Ammon et al functions in the same way as applicant’s guiding protrusion and is thus readable as such. And while element 7/9 of Ammon et al may not fit into a recess of the support portion 6, Franz et al already teach this feature of the claim. In addition, Ammon et al provide the teaching that a guiding protrusion 7/9 can be a separate component from a back plate body 3 as shown in Figure 1 of the reference. This joined parts teaching of Ammon et al when combined with Franz et al suggest that separating components of the back plate can lead to easier assembly or disassembly of the brake pad system.
Applicant goes on to argue that the coupling element 7 of Ammon et al performs a fundamentally different technical role compared to the guiding protrusion of his present application.
In response to this, Ammon et al is being relied upon to teach a guiding protrusion for a back plate body that can be formed of joined parts. In addition, element 9 of Ammon et al is plugged into, i.e., fits within back plate body 3, thus meeting the claim limitations of amended Claim 1. Franz et al teach a guiding protrusion 28 that fits into a recess 30. So, when Franz et al and Ammon et al are taken in combination, Franz et al teach the claimed guiding protrusion and recess while Ammon et al teach that such a protrusion of a back plate body can be plugged thereinto. These combined teachings thus teach all the features of amended Claim 1.
Next, applicant argues that the coupling element 7 of Ammon et al carries no technical significance or advantage in terms of simplifying the fabrication of the pad holder.
In response to this, as referenced above, Ammon et al does teach that element 9 of portion 7 is plugged into back plate 3, i.e., fits therein. This coupling feature taught by Ammon et al teaches a simpler and easily removable joining of the guiding protrusion and the back plate. So contrary to applicant’s remarks, Ammon et al would simplify the fabrication of the pad holder of Franz et al.
Next, applicant argues that the coupling element 7 of Ammon et al is not spherical.
In response to this, the examiner wishes to point out that she is not relying upon Ammon et al to teach this feature of the claim, but rather Franz et al already teach the spherical shape of the guiding protrusion.
And lastly, applicant argues that new dependent Claims 16-19 are not taught by the Franz et al or Ammon et al references.
In response to this, applicant’s attention is directed to the rejections of Claims 16-19 above.
It is for all these reasons that the rejections of claims have been maintained.
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 PAMELA RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 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.
PAMELA RODRIGUEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/PAMELA RODRIGUEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 08/04/26
Prosecution Insights