DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statement has been received and considered.
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 “.. straight line that bisects a line segment connecting a center of the first pin disposition part and a center of the second pin disposition part when viewed from the axial direction of the disc, as claimed in claims 1 and 8 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1,3,8,12-17,21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1,8,12,21 the limitation of a ‘Sprue Mark’ is not understood from the specification, as is commonly known in the art since a ‘ sprue mark’ on a brake caliper typically refers to a corrosion or damage that occurs on the caliper's surface, often due to exposure to moisture, dirt, or salt.
Regarding claims 3 the limitation of “the second bridge part (142) ‘is the section..” is not understood from the drawings and specification. What section is this?
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.
Claims 1-4,8 are 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 1 page 2 of the claim line 11 the limitation of “…has a shape..” is not completely understood, as phrased. Which element/structural feature of the disk brake has this shape?
Claim 8 contains the same problem.
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.
Claims 1-3,5,8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WO 2019/240117 to Shiraishi (for which U.S. 12,066,066 to Shiraishi will be used for a translation) in view of JP 2017214962 or Redemann et al. 11,708,875.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 12, subject to the 112 1st rejection above (and as best understood) Shiraishi shows one of applicant’s prior brake caliper designs in figure 5 (with which they are well familiar) comprising all of the structural features claimed, as readily apparent from the figures. In col 5 around lines 45-54 Shiraishi states:
In addition, thinned parts 6n and 6p are provided in positions corresponding to the pistons 10 and 11 in a disc-radially inner wall 6i of the bridge part 6c, the volume of the thinned part 6n provided so as to correspond to the large-diameter piston 10 is smaller than the volume of the thinned part 6p provided so as to correspond to the small-diameter piston 11, and the length dimension in the disc radial direction of the thinned part 6n is smaller than the length dimension in the disc radial direction of the thinned part 6p.
Lacking in Shiraishi is a specific description of a moment of inertia of area of the caliper main body part on the first bridge part side is larger than a moment of inertia of area of the caliper main body part on the second bridge part side when the caliper main body part is divided by a straight line that bisects a line segment connecting a center of the first pin disposition part and a center of the second pin disposition part when viewed from the axial direction of the disc.
Also lacking is a specific description of a ‘sprue mark’ formed at the time of casting the caliper main body part.
However from the description in Shiraishi one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would realize that, looking at figures 5 and 6, Shiraishi that a moment of inertia of area of the caliper main body part on the first bridge part side 6n is larger than a moment of inertia of area of the caliper main body part on the second bridge part side 6p when the caliper main body part is divided by a straight line that bisects a line segment connecting a center of the first pin disposition part 5 and a center of the second pin disposition part 8 when viewed from the axial direction of the disc.
Also JP ‘’962 teaches the provision of providing a ‘sprue mark’ on the caliper at the time of casting. See at least the abstract of this document.
The reference to Redemann teaches the provision of placing an ‘Arrow’ on the brake caliper assembly. Redemann states the top of col 3:
According to an aspect, the running direction indicator is configured as a direction indicator arrow which points with an arrow tip in the direction of the first rotational direction. The advantage of such a directional arrow is that this typically does not leave any room for interpretation with respect to the preferred running direction. In other words, such an arrow can be uniquely correlated to the preferred running direction for assembly and operating personnel irrespective of different cultural environments.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have provided a ‘sprue mark’ or other types of indicia as taught by either JP ‘962 or Redemann for the reasons discussed in Redemann—that being proper orientation of the brake caliper upon mounting to a vehicle for a particular vehicle application.
Regarding claim 2, as broadly claimed, Shiraishi meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 3, subject to the 112 1st above, (and as best understood) Shiraishi meets the claimed limitations since the left side of the caliper 6n (ie. First bridge part) is the thicker/heavier side than the right side 6p (second bridge part).
Regarding claim 5, as broadly claimed, the ‘cast out part’ could be that area on the side opposite 6p – between elements 6 (arrow) and 6C.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim(s) 12-15,17,21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi in view of Gautier 6,135,246 and JP 2017214962 or Redemann et al. 11,708,875.
Regarding claim 12,21 Shiraishi is relied upon as explained above, however lacks the specifics of the first fixing part, first connection part, second fixing part and second connection parts.
However as seen in figures 1 and 5 of SHiraishi it can be seen that the exit sides of the caliper 1 and carrier 3 are beefed upon on the exit side of the brake disc. See the arrow at ‘A’.
The reference to Gautier shows a brake caliper and carrier assembly in figures 1,3,5,6 and shows that the side 242 of the carrier on the exit side has a greater dimension than the side 241 on the entry side.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a carrier having a larger thickness/area on the exit side in Shiraishi, as taught by Gautier at 242, since Shiaishi indicates in the figures this side of the carrier/brake assembly should be heavier. The moment of inertia limitations of the areas of these parts would therefore inherently bee met.
The fixing and connection parts are as per applicant’s as readily apparent from the figures.
Also JP ‘’962 teaches the provision of providing a ‘sprue mark’ on the caliper at the time of casting. See at least the abstract of this document.
The reference to Redemann teaches the provision of placing an ‘Arrow’ on the brake caliper assembly. Redemann states the top of col 3:
According to an aspect, the running direction indicator is configured as a direction indicator arrow which points with an arrow tip in the direction of the first rotational direction. The advantage of such a directional arrow is that this typically does not leave any room for interpretation with respect to the preferred running direction. In other words, such an arrow can be uniquely correlated to the preferred running direction for assembly and operating personnel irrespective of different cultural environments.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have provided a ‘sprue mark’ or other types of indicia as taught by either JP ‘962 or Redemann for the reasons discussed in Redemann—that being proper orientation of the brake caliper upon mounting to a vehicle for a particular vehicle application.
Regarding claim 13, as broadly claimed, these limitations are capable of being met.
Regarding claims 14,15,17, as broadly claimed, these limitations are capable of being met. Also one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the cross sectional area 242—or in this portion or side of the carrier-- larger in a number of different ways.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4,16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
2/1/26