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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Liao (US 10,760,630 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Liao discloses a caliper brake (100) comprising:
an inner brake pad (312) and an outer brake pad (322)arranged on both sides of a brake disc (2) rotating together with a wheel;
a pressing member (40 (41)) configured to press the inner brake pad toward the brake disc;
a caliper housing (20) provided such that the pressing member moves forward or rearward;
a caliper bridge (22) connected to the caliper housing and configured to press the outer brake pad toward the brake disc by a reaction force according to an operation of the pressing member;
a carrier (10 (11)) fixedly installed in a vehicle body;
at least one guide rod (12, 13) fixedly installed in the carrier and configured to guide sliding movement of the caliper housing and the caliper bridge relative to the carrier; and
at least one outer pad spring (23 in fig. 2) mounted on a protrusion part formed at a side end of an outer pad plate on which the outer brake pad (note the side protrusion ends of the pad plate 322 in fig. 2) is fixedly installed and configured to elastically support the outer brake pad,
wherein the caliper bridge (22) includes:
an outer pad seat (224) on which at least portions of the outer pad spring (23) and the protrusion part (note the side protrusion ends of the pad plate 322 in fig. 2) are seated;
a first torque support step (left side of 225) protruding from an upper side of the outer pad seat and facing an upper end of the protrusion part or one side of the outer pad spring; and
a second torque support step (ridge side 225) protruding from a lower side of the outer pad seat and facing a lower end of the protrusion part or the other side of the outer pad spring,
wherein the outer pad spring (note fig. 2 and the figure shown below) includes:
a first fastening portion facing a circumferential outer surface of the first torque support step (note fig. 2 and the figure shown below); and
a second fastening portion facing a circumferential outer surface of the second torque support step (note fig. 2 and the figure shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
819
1193
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (US 10,760,630 B2) in view of Inoue (WO 2021039413 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Liao discloses the outer pad plate and the outer pad spring includes: a base disposed to face the rear surface of the pad plate and a fastening hole which is formed through the base but fails to disclose a restraint protrusion provided on a rear surface of the protrusion part wherein the restraint protrusion is inserted into the fastening hole. However, Inoue discloses a pad plate including restraint protrusion (152 in fig. 7) inserted into a fastening hole of pad spring (161). 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 pad plate and the pad spring of Liao with restraint protrusion as taught by Inoue will provide stronger connection of the spring to the pad plate and reduce any noise and rattling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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 the outer pad spring including a first fastening portion facing a circumferential outer surface of the first torque support step and a second fastening portion facing a circumferential outer surface of the second torque support step, the examiner notes that Liao discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including the outer pad spring (note fig. 2 and the figure shown above) including a first fastening portion facing a circumferential outer surface of the first torque support step (note fig. 2 and the figure shown above) and a second fastening portion facing a circumferential outer surface of the second torque support step (note fig. 2 and the figure shown above).
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