Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/091,696

BRAKE ASSEMBLY AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A BRAKE ASSEMBLY FOR A VEHICLE WHEEL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 30, 2022
Examiner
MORRIS, DAVID R.
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
HL Mando Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
417 granted / 508 resolved
+30.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
545
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
31.8%
-8.2% vs TC avg
§102
35.0%
-5.0% vs TC avg
§112
29.9%
-10.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 508 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/15/2025 has been entered. Claim Objections Claims 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites, “an acuator”. This is a typographical error, and should read “an actuator” or “an electric actuator”, since actuator is spelled with two t’s. Claim 10 recites “generate the force for moving both of the the first and second brake pads”. One instance of “the” is redundant. Claim 11 recites, “a space”, previously recited in claim 1. Please amend this to recite “the space” to improve clarity such that the claim is referring to the same space previously recited. 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, 6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsiberidou (DE 10 2016 105169 A1) in view of Shirai et al. (U.S. 4299311). Regarding claim 1, Tsiberidou discloses (figs. 3 or 4) A brake assembly (110) for a vehicle wheel (pgh. 0016) and method of operating a brake pad assembly, comprising: a braked member (12) that is couplable or coupled to the vehicle wheel for joint rotation therewith about a rotation axis (pgh. 0016), wherein the braked member has first and second contact surfaces (active surfaces 20, 22, see pgh. 0060) which are arranged at an axial distance from one another; (see fig. 3 and pgh. 0058) and a braking unit (brake caliper 14) comprising a brake force generator (design with two pistons 28) and first and second brake pads (30, 32), wherein the brake pads are arranged between the first and second contact surfaces (in gap 24), wherein the brake force generator moves the first and second brake pads axially away from each other, thereby bringing the first and second brake pad into contact with respective ones of the first and second contact surfaces of the braked member (pgh. 0059-0060). wherein the first and second contact surfaces form at least part of opposite side faces of a space (24) in which the first and second brake pads are at least partially received (as shown). wherein a brake dust collector is arranged in the space (pgh. 0074-0075) at a bottom face that extends in between the first and second contact surfaces (brake dust collects at the bottom of 24 and then travels through 72 to area 76). wherein the brake dust collector has a ring shape (outer circumference of 12 within space 24 is “ring shaped” as shown) and is arranged at an outer circumferential surface of a connecting portion (axial length of 12 as shown). Tsiberidou does not appear to disclose the first brake pad moving along a first movement axis extending at a non-zero angle relative to a second movement axis of the second brake pad. In other words, the brake pad movement axis is inclined radially with respect to the rotation axis, rather than parallel to the rotation axis. In the same field of endeavor of disc brakes, Shirai teaches (fig. 8) a disc brake including a braked member 12, braking unit 20, and brake pad 18a, where the brake pad moves along a movement axis that is slanted with respect to the rotation axis so that the pressing surfaces of the brake pad and disc are parallel to each other (see col. 6 lines 5-28). In order to arrive at the claimed invention, the first and second contact surfaces of Tsiberidou would be inclined, and the brake pads and respective pistons would also be slanted such that the respective engagement surfaces remain parallel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the geometry of the piston actuation axis of Tsiberidou as suggested by Shirai in order to increase braking force. Upon making the modification, the surface of the rotor 5 of Tsiberidou becomes conical, which has a larger surface area than a purely radial friction surface, thereby allowing for more braking force to be generated. By concurrently slanting the brake pads and pistons, multiple benefits are realized. First, brake pads of uniform thickness can be used (see col 6. Lines 5-28 of Shirai) as opposed to variable thickness pads. Second, piston pressure to the pad and disc is maximized, because if the piston acts in the axial direction but the brake pad or rotor is slanted, the effective brake force transmitted by the piston functions as a cosine of the angle between the piston and the braking surface normal direction. Regarding claim 2, Tsiberidou discloses (fig. 3) the first and second contact surfaces face each other (as shown). Regarding claim 6, Tsiberidou discloses (fig. 3) the first and second contact surfaces are each comprised by brake disc portions (20,22) of the braked member. Regarding claim 8, Tsiberidou discloses (fig. 3 and pgh. 0064) at least one brake disc portion of the brake disc portions has a stiffening structure (42) on a side thereof that is opposite to the side that has the contact surface (as shown). Regarding claim 9, Tsiberidou discloses (fig. 3) each of the first and second brake pads is displaceable relative to a housing of the braking unit (16 at least) and relative to one another (as shown). Regarding claim 10, Tsiberidou discloses (fig. 3) the brake force generator comprises one of an “actuator” and a hydraulic chamber (at least one of 28/60), each of which being configured to generate the force for moving both of the first and second brake pads (28 and/or 60 generates force for moving the brake pads). Regarding claim 11, Tsiberidou discloses (fig. 3) at least part of the actuator or the hydraulic chamber are received in a space (24, as shown). Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsiberidou (DE 10 2016 105169 A1) in view of Shirai et al. (U.S. 4299311) and Bach (DE 102006014960 A1). Regarding claim 12, Tsiberidou does not appear to disclose a further brake pad. In the same field of endeavor of disc brakes, Bach teaches (fig. 1) a disc brake including a braked member (3) with first and second contact surfaces (each of 6), a pair of brake pads (38) engaging the first and second contact surfaces, and at least one further brake pad (39) that can be brought into contact with a further contact surface (7, on left side) facing away from at least one of the first and second contact surfaces (as shown). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the further brake pad of Bach to either the left or right side of the brake of Tsiberidou to increase total braking force, if desired. By adding a third pad, the total area of the brake pads, and thus braking force, increases 50%. This reduces wear and heat on all pads by distributing the braking force across 3 pads instead of 2. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. On page 6, Applicant contends that the collector 76 of Tsiberidou is not “arranged in the space at a bottom face that extends in between the first and second contact surfaces” as required by claim 1. It is noted that 76 of Tsiberidou was not mapped to the recited “brake dust collector”. Rather, the circumferential surface at the radial inner end of space 24 was mapped to the brake dust collector, as the dust initially “collects” here at least to some extent before moving through the discharge channel 72 to the chamber 76. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM - 5:00 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. /DAVID MORRIS/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3616 /DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 30, 2022
Application Filed
May 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 21, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597546
SOLENOID, SOLENOID VALVE, AND SHOCK ABSORBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595021
BRAKE DEVICE FOR HUMAN-POWERED VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594919
Trailer Brake Control System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12578004
SHOCK ABSORBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571440
BRAKE APPARATUS FOR 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+13.7%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 508 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