DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102021210946 A1 in view of Lou et al. U.S. 2021/0348663 and Baumgartner et al. 9,334,909.
Regarding claims 1,11 DE '946 shows a component that may be used to make a caliper for a vehicle disc brake application as best seen in figures 3-5. In figure 4, as broadly claimed, DE ‘946 shows a first part at 20 and a second part generally indicated at 26 to leftmost (lower) lead line to numeral 28. The middle portion is considered to be in the area of numeral 26 while the finger would be considered to be lower/left numeral 28.
As stated in the machine translation:
As a further advantage, chemically and physically modified surfaces of the individual components, such as the metal sheets, for example a cover plate with a lotus effect, are used so that less dirt gets caught, for example.
In principle, the choice of the component as a multi-component component according to the invention is not restricted. Purely by way of example, the multi-component part can be selected from a housing part, in particular a brake caliper housing, a brake cylinder, a brake rotor, a brake caliper. As specific examples, the components or at least one component can be made of steel… cast iron stamped parts.
DE ‘946 further states in the machine translation:
It can also be preferred that a first component has a receptacle for receiving a second component to be connected to the first component. In this configuration, the components can be prefixed to one another by arranging the second component in the receptacle of the first component It can also be advantageous for the components to be connected to one another by another connection technology in addition to soldering. For example, it may be preferable for the components to be caulked or glued to one another in addition to being soldered. In other words, it can be advantageous that the soldering process is used in combination with other manufacturing techniques, such as gluing and/or caulking, i.e. that there are other innovative and/or alternative joining processes in combination with the soldering technology according to the invention, without the core of the invention to leave. On the one hand, this can further improve the stability and, for example, not limit a connection of the corresponding individual components exclusively to the solder material. As a result, a wide variety of soldering technologies can be used even with complex geometries, without direct access to every connection position having to be available, for example in the case of laser soldering. [i.e. welding].
Lacking in DE '946 is a specific showing of the caliper having the first part being made of a metal casted part and the second part further comprises at least one at least partially enclosed hollow section. However given that DE '946 specifically discussed that it is known to make the caliper components from cast parts (i.e. cast iron), sheet steel, and the components being formed from "material free areas" (i.e. pores, gaps etc. by way of example) the ordinary skilled worker in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious, based upon the disclosure in DE '946, to have formed a brake caliper with a first metal casted part 20 and a second part comprising the finger(s)/claws 26,28 of the caliper and comprised of sheet metal with a hollow section therein.
Nevertheless the reference to Lou provides a better showing of a brake caliper that may comprise a fixed and sliding caliper systems that may comprise either unitary or binary constructions (para 0019). As stated in para 0022:
[0022] The sliding caliper system may comprise one or more pieces. For example, the bridge and the fingers of the sliding caliper may be formed from a single, integral component. In some configurations, the bridge and the one or more fingers of the sliding caliper may be formed from two or more discrete pieces that are connected or fastened together via one or more fasteners like bolts, screws, pins, welds. The bridge and the one or more fingers may be formed from the same material. The bridge and the one or more fingers may be formed from different materials. The bridge and the one or more fingers may be formed from different materials to provide for a desired stiffness in the sliding caliper system.
The reference to Baumgartner is relied upon to provide a better visual showing of what the hollow components of a brake caliper system may look like (for example). See figures 4-6.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious, based upon the disclosure in DE '946, and as taught by Lou and Baumgartner, to have formed a brake caliper with a first metal casted part and a second part comprising the finger(s)/claws of the caliper and comprised of sheet metal with a hollow section therein.
As seen in figure 4 of DE ‘946, and as broadly claimed, portion 26 may be considered to be the ‘middle portion’ which can be said to be comprised of the finger portion 28—indicated by the lower lead line to 28. In light of the discussion in para 0022 of Lou that the bridge and finger portions may be made of different materials, it further adds to the case that it would have been obvious to have formed parts 20 and 26,28 components separately. Note also that any ‘portion’ of the material between 26 and 28 in figure 4 of DE ‘946 could be considered as a ‘middle’ portion as broadly claimed.
Regarding claim 2 since both DE '946 and Lou indicate that the component parts of the caliper may be secured by laser soldering and/or welding these limitations are considered to be met.
Regarding claims 3,4 in light of the discussions in DE '946 and Lou (para 0022) indicating that the caliper component parts may be secured via various mechanical fixing means, these limitations are considered to be met as an obvious choice of securing these components.
Regarding claims 6-11 DE '946 as modified above and as explained above is capable of meeting the claimed requirements since DE '946, as modified, is not locked into any particular caliper arrangement.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 946/Lou/Baumgartner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lethorn 9.989,112.
Regarding claim 5 DE '946, as modified above, lacks specifically showing where one of the hollow sections comprises a vibration damping material.
The reference to Lethorn shows a brake caliper housing having a damper bore 130 passing through the caliper housing with a damping material 10,52 therein.
It would have been obvious to have further modified DE '946 to include a damping material within one of the hollow parts to dampen vibrations of the brake caliper during braking applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12,13 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s primary argument is that:
In contrast, the cited reference does not teach or suggest the feature described above [(i.e amendment to claims 1,11)]. For example, DE'946 is directed to brake system functionality involving cooperation between hydraulic and electromechanical actuation systems to generate clamping forces, Lou focuses on integrating fixed and sliding caliper systems to support service and parking brake operations, and Baumgartner discusses a disc brake caliper utilizing a hollow profile frame for transmitting reaction forces. None of these references teaches or suggests a brake caliper having a middle portion that is arrangeable opposite to a circumferential surface of the brake disc, wherein the middle portion is comprised either by the first part or by the second part and extends from a finger side to a piston side.
The examiner disagrees . As explained in the action above DE ‘946 shows in figure 4 a first part at 20 and a second part generally indicated at 26 to leftmost (lower) lead line to numeral 28. The middle portion is considered to be in the area of numeral 26 while the finger would be considered to be lower/left numeral 28. As broadly claimed DE ‘946 can be therefore be said to show a brake caliper 14 having a middle portion that is arrangeable opposite to a circumferential surface of the brake disc, the middle portion being comprised either by the first part or by the second part, wherein the middle portion 26 extends from a finger side 28 to a piston side 12.
In light of the discussion in Lou in para 0022 indicating that the bridge and finger portions may be formed of different materials the examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to have extended this teaching to forming parts 20 and 26,28 separately, which could reduce costs and save on weight if formed from different materials.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
2/8/26