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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 recites, “a braking operation” in line 13, previously recited in line 6. Please amend the second recitation to “the braking operation” for consistency purposes.
Claim 21 is absent from the listing of claims, but the remarks state that claims 21-24 are new. It is believed that claim 21 was inadvertently omitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 5-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knoop et al. (U.S. 2017/0167556).
Regarding claim 5, Knoop discloses A brake assembly for a disc brake (abstract at least), the brake assembly comprising:
a caliper housing (120); a piston assembly (including 14) moveably disposed within the caliper housing (as shown) and configured to actuate a first brake pad assembly (18) in an axial direction of a rotor (16) from a first retracted position to a first extended position during a braking operation; and
a sensor arrangement (see pgh. 0083-99, load sensor 142 at least) configured to detect a position of a component of the piston assembly (e.g. step 172) to indicate displacement of the component of the piston assembly in the axial direction during the braking operation (see pgh. 0088); and
a controller (pgh. 0088, “ECU” at least) configured to receive sensor signals (see pgh. 0088), wherein the sensor signals indicate at least input force or pressure applied (sensor 142 is a “load” sensor, which at least “indicates” input force or pressure applied), from the sensor arrangement and to process, in response to the sensor signals, a derived operational parameter indicative of at least running clearance (pgh. 0099 at least, the sensor data is used to determine wear, which is a “derived operational parameter” based on the load, and this parameter is “indicative of at least running clearance”, because the more the brake is worn, the more running clearance there is) during a braking operation (see pgh. 0099, nut 166 ius moving and spring 140 is compressing, thereby applying a load to the sensor 142, so this operation is deemed “a braking operation”).
Regarding claim 6, Knoop discloses the sensor arrangement is fixed relative to the caliper housing such that there is relative movement between the sensor arrangement and the component of the piston assembly during the braking operation (see fig. 3 at least, 150 mounted in 120).
Regarding claim 12, Knoop discloses the sensor arrangement (at 142 at least) is fixed relative to the component of the piston assembly (via spring 140) such that the sensor arrangement is displaced together with the component of the piston assembly in the axial direction during the braking operation (142 is spring biased toward 172 and moves together with 172).
Regarding claim 13, Knoop discloses the sensor arrangement comprises a single sensor (load sensor 142) configured to detect: a position of an adjuster mechanism to determine total wear (pgh. 0099, signal indicative of wear); and the displacement of the component of the piston assembly in the axial direction (pgh. 0095-0099 at least, displacement of 142 is indicative of displacement of piston assembly component via rotation of 148/132).
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoop et al. (U.S. 2017/0167556) in view of Philpott (U.S. 2016/0160949).
Regarding claim 7, Knoop discloses an adjuster mechanism (22) that is operatively connected to the piston assembly and is configured to adjust the first extended position to ensure an acceptable total running clearance between the first brake pad assembly and the rotor and a second brake pad assembly and the rotor (see pgh. 0076-0078 at least).
Knoop does not appear to disclose the first and second sensors as claimed. In the same field of endeavor of brake adjuster mechanisms, Philpott teaches an adjuster mechanism (120), and a sensor arrangement comprising a first sensor (152) and a second sensor (156), wherein the first sensor is configured to detect a position of the adjuster mechanism to determine total wear (pgh. 0051 at least) and the second sensor is configured to detect displacement of the component of the piston assembly in the axial direction (fig. 4A and pgh. 0055-0059).
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 first and second sensors of Philpott to the adjuster mechanism of Knoop to provide redundancy to the system by having multiple sensors of different types for determining the amount of adjustment needed.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philpott (U.S. 2016/0160949) in view of Knoop et al. (U.S. 2017/0167556).
Regarding claim 8, Philpott discloses (figs. 1-2A) A brake assembly for a disc brake (as
shown), the brake assembly comprising:
a caliper housing (20/22);
a piston assembly (60) moveably disposed within the caliper housing and configured to actuate a first brake pad assembly (24) in an axial direction of a rotor (28) from a first retracted position to a first extended position during a braking operation (engaged and disengaged positions); and
a sensor arrangement (150) configured to detect a position of a component (e.g. 82) of the piston assembly to indicate displacement of the component of the piston assembly in the axial direction during the braking operation (see pgh. 0051 at least),
a controller (see pgh. 0053) configured to receive sensor signals (see pgh. 0052 and 0054), and to process, in response to the sensor signals, a derived operational parameter indicative of at least running clearance (see pgh. 0057 at least, position of indicator 160 sensed by sensor 156 indicative of wear, which is indicative of running clearance, as the amount of wear affects the amount of running clearance);
the sensor arrangement further comprises:
a wear sensor arm (142) in communication with the adjuster mechanism, the wear sensor arm being configured to displace relative to the caliper housing in an axial direction as the adjuster mechanism adjusts the first extended position of the piston assembly (pgh. 0046-0047 at least),
wherein the first sensor is in communication with the wear sensor arm to detect the displacement of the wear sensor arm in the axial direction (pgh. 0051 at least) and the second sensor is in communication with the component of the piston assembly to detect the displacement of the component of the piston assembly in the axial direction (as previously mapped).
Philpott does not appear to disclose the sensor signals indicate at least input force or pressure applied, from the sensor arrangement. Knoop teaches the sensor signals indicate at least input force or pressure applied (sensor 142 is a “load” sensor, which at least “indicates” input force or pressure applied). 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 load sensors of Knoop to the adjuster mechanism of Philpott to provide redundancy to the system by having multiple sensors of different types for determining the amount of adjustment needed.
Regarding claim 18, Philpott further discloses in the component of the piston assembly comprises a projection 1 (e.g. inward projection 166) configured to be detected by the sensor arrangement to indicate axial movement of the component of the piston assembly, to indicate displacement of the component of the piston assembly during a braking operation. (see mapping above for Philpott mapped to claim 5).
Philpott does not appear to disclose the sensor signals indicate at least input force or pressure applied, from the sensor arrangement (from claim 5). Knoop teaches the sensor signals indicate at least input force or pressure applied (sensor 142 is a “load” sensor, which at least “indicates” input force or pressure applied). 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 load sensors of Knoop to the adjuster mechanism of Philpott to provide redundancy to the system by having multiple sensors of different types for determining the amount of adjustment needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11, 14-17, 19, 20, 22 and 24 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome any 112(b) rejections, as appropriate.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 5
Applicant contends on page 8 of the remarks filed 5/12/2026 that Philpott does not disclose the controller processing “a derived operational parameter indicative of at least running clearance during a braking operation”, because the “readings relating to the wear of the brake pads” of Knoop may be pad-wear status reading rather than a brake-gap or actuation-distance parameter. It is noted that the claims do not presently require determining or processing a brake gap parameter or actuation-distance parameter, but rather only a “derived operational parameter”. Accordingly, “pad-wear status”, as identified by the arguments, is considered a “derived operational parameter” for purposes of the claim.
Applicant states on page that “Brake pad wear is a condition of the friction material over service life, while running clearance is the present gap or actuation distance between the pad(s) and rotor before contact during a braking event. Knoop itself recognizes the distinction between these two attributes given that Knoop says the adjuster extends the pistons as pads wear to "bring the running clearance back into [the] desired range," while the continuous wear sensor monitors the amount of friction material remaining on the pads. See Knoop 0076-0077; see also 0097.” This discussion does not appear to have any bearing on the instant claims, because the claim does not require calculation, processing, determining, receiving, etc. of running clearance. Rather, the claim requires that the controller process a derived operational parameter that is indicative of at least running clearance, i.e. indicates the existence of running clearance, for example.
Applicant contends on page 8 that the brake pad wear sensor of Knoop does not disclose processing sensor signals to derive a running-clearance parameter. It is noted that this is not claimed. What is claimed is processing a “derived operational parameter”, such operational parameter being “indicative of at least running clearance”. Accordingly, the parameter merely needs to indicate the presence of running clearance rather than deriving the parameter directly. Such a brake pad wear sensor of Knoop carries out this function, as described above.
Applicant contends on page 8 that the brake pad wear sensor of Knoop does not derive running clearance using a knee point detection algorithm. It is noted that these features are not recited in claim 5.
Applicant contends on page 8 that the brake pad wear sensor of Knoop does not perform functions during a braking operation, because the prior art requires a stationary measurement. It is noted that movement of the sensor components constitutes “during a braking operation” as claimed, as described above. Further it is noted that “during a braking operation” can be both while the vehicle is moving and while it is stationary.
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 R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights