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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “anti-rotation device configured to fix the top surface in a desired position, wherein the anti-rotation device comprises an elastomeric bellow,” as recited in claims 1, 13 and 21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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 1-4, 6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iraschko (DE 4230005) in view of Haldex (DE 2020 070 19600) (machine translation attached).
Regarding independent claim 1, Iraschko discloses an air disc brake tappet (70, 72) (see machine translation, ¶ 0001; FIGS. 1-3) comprising: a portion (70) configured to couple the air disc brake tappet with a support member (72); a top surface (A) (see annotated FIG. 3, below), wherein the top surface is tapered at an angle with respect to an axis perpendicular to an axis running through the support member (see machine translation, ¶ 0031).
PNG
media_image1.png
551
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Iraschko does not disclose an anti-rotation device configured to fix the top surface in a desired position, wherein the anti-rotation device comprises an elastomeric bellow.
Haldex teaches an air disc brake tappet (see e.g. ¶ 0007; FIGS. 1, 2) comprising an anti-rotation device (15) configured to fix a top surface in a desired position (see ¶¶ 0052-0055) wherein the anti-rotation device comprises an elastomeric bellow (see ¶ 0054).
It would have been obvious to combine the elastomeric bellow of Haldex with the device of Iraschko to prevent the entry of contaminants into the brake (see e.g. Haldex, ¶¶ 0016, 0017), in addition to preventing rotation of the tappet during maintenance and disassembly (see e.g. Haldex, ¶ 0056).
Regarding claim 2, Iraschko does not disclose that the angle is about one degree.
However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A) (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Additionally, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation” (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B).
In the present case, it would have been routine experimentation to arrive at an angle of the top surface of about one degree as a matter of routine experimentation. Iraschko states:
Depending on the setting of the two angles δ and η, the brake pad (10) is thereby subjected to asymmetrical loading in the circumferential direction and/or radial direction of the brake disc. The two angles δ and η are selected according to values determined empirically through appropriate field tests so that circumferential and radial oblique wear can be essentially eliminated.
(see machine translation, ¶0030). Therefore, it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to arrive at an angle of about one degree to optimize the reduction in circumferential and radial oblique wear.
Regarding claim 3, Iraschko discloses that the top surface is shaped such that 180-degree rotation of the top surface about the axis running through the support member positions the air disc brake tappet for use with either a left-hand brake or a right-hand brake of a vehicle (see e.g. ¶ 0030, “asymmetrical loading in the circumferential direction and/or radial direction,” thereby implying that the angled surface can be tilted exclusively in the circumferential direction and allowing 180-degree rotation for a left-hand brake or a right-hand brake).
Regarding claim 4, Iraschko discloses that the top surface is flat (see e.g. FIG. 3; surface (81) is flat; see also ¶ 0031).
Regarding claim 6, Iraschko discloses that the support member is positioned at a center of the air disc brake tappet (see FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Iraschko discloses that the portion is positioned on the air disc brake tappet such that the support member is positioned at about a center of the air disc brake tappet (see FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Iraschko discloses that the support member comprises a threaded tube (see ¶¶ 0024, 0025).
Regarding claim 10, Iraschko discloses that a center of the top surface of the air disc brake tappet is positioned in a braking system to align with a center of a brake pad backing plate (see FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Iraschko discloses that a center of the top surface of the air disc brake tappet is positioned in a braking system to not align with a center of a brake pad backing plate (see FIG. 2, ¶ 0033).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iraschko (DE 4230005) and Haldex (DE 20 2007 019 600), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Yilmaz (WO 2022/139703) (Applicant cited).
Regarding claim 5, Iraschko does not disclose that the top surface comprises at least one raised surface and/or recess.
Yilmaz teaches an air disc brake tappet (5) (see FIG. 17), comprising a top surface having at least one raised surface (5.1) and/or recess (area between adjacent raised surfaces (5.1)) (see page 11, line 28 to page 12, line 3; FIGS. 15-17).
It would have been obvious to combine the at least one raised surface and/or recess with the tappet and brake pad of Iraschko to prevent rotation of the tappet (see e.g. Yilmaz, page 11, line 28 to page 12, line 3; see also Iraschko, machine translation, ¶ 0031), thereby maintaining proper orientation of the tappet.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iraschko (DE 4230005) and Haldex (DE 20 2007 019 600), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Baumgartner et al. (US 2019/0203785).
Regarding claim 7, Iraschko does not disclose that the portion is positioned on the air disc brake tappet such that the support member is positioned away from a center of the air disc brake tappet.
Baumgartner teaches an air disc brake tappet (9) (see Abstract, FIG. 3), wherein a portion is positioned on the air disc brake tappet such that the support member (8) is positioned away from a center of the air disc brake tappet (see FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious to position the portion of Iraschko such that the portion is positioned on the tappet away from a center of the tappet to augment the ability to counteract uneven wear of the brake pad (see Baumgartner, ¶¶ 0006, 0016-0018)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iraschko (DE 4230005) and Haldex (DE 20 2007 019 600), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Malki et al. (US 2017/0114850).
Regarding claim 12, Iraschko does not disclose that the air disc brake tappet is at least one of machined, cast, or sintered powder metal and forged into the top surface.
Malki teaches an air disc brake tappet (see ¶¶ 0059-0061) that is cast (see ¶ 0059-0061).
It would have been obvious to form the brake tappet of Iraschko, including the top surface, using casting to provide a sufficient strength for withstanding the axial loads during braking (see Malki, ¶ 0061).
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iraschko (DE 4230005) in view of Haldex (DE 20 2007 019 600) (machine translation attached) and further in view of Yilmaz (WO 2022/139703) (Applicant cited).
Regarding independent claim 13, Iraschko discloses an air disc brake tappet (70, 72) (see machine translation, ¶ 0001; FIGS. 1-3) comprising: a tapered top surface (A) (see annotated FIG. 3, below; see also machine translation, ¶ 0031); and a portion (70) configured to couple the air disc brake tappet with a support member (72).
Iraschko does not disclose that the tapered top surface comprises at least one interface feature positioned and shaped to mate with a corresponding at least one interface feature in a brake pad backing plate.
Yilmaz teaches an air disc brake system (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-9) comprising a rotor (4), an inner brake pad (3) coupled with a backing plate (see FIG. 3), and a tappet (5), wherein the top surface of the tappet comprises at least one interface feature (5.1) positioned and shaped to mate with a corresponding at least one interface feature in a brake pad (5.1) (see page 11, line 28 to page 12, line 3; FIGS. 15, 16).
It would have been obvious to combine the mating interface features with the tappet and brake pad of Iraschko to prevent rotation of the tappet (see e.g. Yilmaz, page 11, line 28 to page 12, line 3; see also Iraschko, machine translation, ¶ 0031), thereby maintaining proper orientation of the tappet.
Iraschko does not disclose an anti-rotation device configured to fix the top surface in a desired position, wherein the anti-rotation device comprises an elastomeric bellow.
Haldex teaches an air disc brake tappet (see e.g. ¶ 0007; FIGS. 1, 2) comprising an anti-rotation device (15) configured to fix a top surface in a desired position (see ¶¶ 0052-0055) wherein the anti-rotation device comprises an elastomeric bellow (see ¶ 0054).
It would have been obvious to combine the elastomeric bellow of Haldex with the device of Iraschko to prevent the entry of contaminants into the brake (see e.g. Haldex, ¶¶ 0016, 0017), in addition to preventing rotation of the tappet during maintenance and disassembly (see e.g. Haldex, ¶ 0056).
PNG
media_image1.png
551
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Iraschko discloses a tapered top surface (see ¶ 0031). Yilmaz teaches that the at least one interface feature of the top surface comprises a raised surface (5.1), and wherein the corresponding at least one interface feature of the brake pad backing plate comprises a recess (3.1) (see FIGS. 15-17).
Regarding claim 15, Iraschko discloses a tapered top surface (see ¶ 0031). Yilmaz teaches that the at least one interface feature of the top surface comprises a recess (see FIG. 17, recess between projections (5.1)) and wherein the corresponding at least one interface feature of the brake pad backing plate comprises a raised surface (see FIG. 16, portion raised between recesses (3.1)).
Regarding claim 16, Iraschko discloses a tapered top surface (see ¶ 0031). Yilmaz teaches that the at least one interface feature of the tapered top surface comprises both (i) a raised surface (see FIG. 16; raised surface between recesses (3.1)) and (ii) a recess (3.1) (see FIG. 16).
Regarding claim 17, Iraschko discloses a tapered top surface (see ¶ 0031). Yilmaz teaches that a perimeter (5.1) of the at least one interface feature of the tapered top surface is shaped to be receivingly engaged in the at least one interface feature of the brake pad backing plate (see FIGS. 15-17).
Regarding claim 18, Iraschko discloses that the support member comprises a threaded tube (see ¶¶ 0024, 0025).
Regarding claim 19, Yilmaz teaches that the at least one interface feature is vertically oriented (see FIG. 17; note: the brake system of Yilmaz can be oriented such that the interface feature (3.1, 5.1) can be oriented horizontally or vertically).
Regarding claim 20, Yilmaz teaches that the at least one interface feature is horizontally oriented (see FIG. 17; note: the brake system of Yilmaz can be oriented such that the interface feature (3.1, 5.1) can be oriented horizontally or vertically).
Claims 21-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated as being unpatentable over Stoeger (WO 2023/052323) in view of Haldex (DE 20 2007 019 600). All citations to Stoeger (WO 2023/052323) will be made with respect to Stoeger (US 2024/0392850), which is an English-language publication corresponding to the WO publication.
Regarding claim 21, Stoeger teaches a method comprising: performing in an air disc brake system (see FIG. 3) comprising a rotor (2), an inner brake pad (12) coupled with a backing plate (11), and a tappet (16) comprising a tapered top surface (19) (see ¶ 0039): pushing the tappet into initial contact with the backing plate (see e.g. FIG. 3), wherein because the tappet comprises the tapered top surface, a first end of the tappet has initial contact with a trailing edge of the backing plate without a second end of the tappet having contact with a leading edge of the backing plate (see FIG. 3; ¶ 0041); and continuing to push the tappet into contact with the backing plate such that both the first and second ends of the tappet are in contact with the backing plate (see ¶ 0041, first end is “initially” in contact, thereby implying second end thereafter comes into contact; see also ¶ 0037, entire “contact region” is inclined, thereby implying second end contacts the inclined portion); wherein unequal force distribution caused by a moment created between a brake pad drag force and an abutment force can cause uneven wear of the brake pad and wherein the tapered top surface creates a counter force on the trailing edge of the backing plate that at least partially offsets the forces (see ¶ 0012).
Stoeger does not disclose an anti-rotation device configured to fix the top surface in a desired position, wherein the anti-rotation device comprises an elastomeric bellow.
Haldex teaches an air disc brake tappet (see e.g. ¶ 0007; FIGS. 1, 2) comprising an anti-rotation device (15) configured to fix a top surface in a desired position (see ¶¶ 0052-0055) wherein the anti-rotation device comprises an elastomeric bellow (see ¶ 0054).
It would have been obvious to combine the elastomeric bellow of Haldex with the device of Stoeger to prevent the entry of contaminants into the brake (see e.g. Haldex, ¶¶ 0016, 0017), in addition to preventing rotation of the tappet during maintenance and disassembly (see e.g. Haldex, ¶ 0056).
Regarding claim 22, Stoeger discloses that the tapered top surface is tapered at about a one-degree angle (see ¶ 0042).
Regarding claim 23, Stoeger discloses that the top surface of the tappet and a surface of the backing plate in contact with the top surface of the tappet are flat (see FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 25, Stoeger discloses that a center of the top surface of the tappet is positioned to align with a center of the backing plate (see FIG. 3).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoeger (WO 2023/052323) and Haldex (DE 20 2007 019 600), as applied to claim 21, above, and further in view of Yilmaz (WO 2022/139703) (Applicant cited).
Regarding claim 24, Stoeger does not disclose that the top surface of the tappet and a surface of the backing plate in contact with the top surface of the tappet comprise mating interface features.
Yilmaz teaches an air disc brake system (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-9) comprising a rotor (4), an inner brake pad (3) coupled with a backing plate (see FIG. 3), and a tappet (5), wherein the top surface of the tappet and a surface of the backing plate in contact with the top surface of the tappet comprise mating interface features (3.1, 5.1) (see page 11, line 28 to page 12, line 3; FIGS. 15, 16).
It would have been obvious to combine the mating interface features with the tappet and brake pad of Stoeger to prevent rotation of the tappet (see e.g. Yilmaz, page 11, line 28 to page 12, line 3), thereby maintaining proper orientation of the tappet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13 and 21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection noted 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 NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
December 30, 2025