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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “entire surface.” It is unclear what forms the “entire surface of the inner back plate, “ whether the “surface” is intended to be the inner surface of the inner back plate, in which case the claim is not more limiting (the hydraulic space is inherently formed on the entirety of the inner back plates inner surface as it is what defines the inner back plate inner surface), or whether the “surface” is intended to be the outer surface of the inner back plate, in which case the claim is not demonstrated in the drawings because the hydraulic space is not formed over the “entire surface of the inner back plate.” For purposes of examination, “surface” will be interpreted as the outer surface of the inner back plate and “entire surface” will be interpreted as “substantially entire surface.”
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folch (US 4553644 A) in view of Mayer (DE 102014006152 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Folch discloses a disc brake comprising: an inner brake pad (4) and an outer brake pad disposed on both sides of a brake disc (2); an inner back plate and an outer back plate (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2) configured to support outer sides of the inner brake pad (4) and the outer brake pad, respectively, with the brake disc (2) interposed therebetween (see Fig. 1) a hydraulic space (7) to accommodate a working fluid; and a tube (8) through which the working fluid is transferred to the hydraulic space (7) so that the inner back plate (33) moves toward the brake disc (2) by hydraulic pressure (see Fig. 2).
Folch does not disclose the hydraulic space being inside the inner back plate (33).
Mayer teaches the inclusion of a hydraulic space (5) inside the inner back plate (3) (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to combine the inner back plate of Mayer with the disc brake of Folch in order to produce a structurally simpler disc brake, saving space in the system, and improving the cost efficiency of the disc brake (see DE 102014006152 A1 [Mayer]; [0005]).
Regarding Claim 2, Mayer teaches the inner back plate (3) comprises a connecting hole connected to the hydraulic space (5), in which the end of the tube (6) is fixed, and through which the working fluid passes (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Mayer teaches the connecting hole is formed in a rear central portion of the inner back plate (3) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Mayer teaches the hydraulic space (5) is formed over an entire surface of the inner back plate (3) so that the entire surface of the inner brake pad is uniformly pressed when the working fluid is introduced through the tube (6) (see Fig. 1).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folch (US 4553644 A) as modified by Mayer (DE 102014006152 A1) in Claim 1, above, further in view of Mayer (DE 102015001541 A1), which will hence forth be referred to as Mayer [2015].
Regarding Claim 5, Folch modified by Mayer teaches the disc brake of claim 2.
Folch modified by Mayer do not teach a plurality of tube and connecting holes.
Mayer [2015] teaches the tube (6) and the connecting hole are provided as a plurality of tubes (8) and a plurality of connecting holes, and the working fluid may be introduced into the hydraulic space (5) through the plurality of tubes and connecting holes (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to combine the plurality of tubes and connecting holes of Mayer [2015] with the disc brake of Folch modified by Mayer in order to provide the system with the ability to remove fluid for cooling or air bleeding while still supplying fluid to the system (see DE 102015001541 A1 [Mayer]; [0007]).
Regarding Claim 6, Mayer [2015] teaches the connecting holes are formed to be spaced apart from each other at equal intervals in a horizontal direction on both sides from the center of the inner back plate (see Fig. 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folch (US 4553644 A) as modified by Mayer (DE 102014006152 A1) in Claim 1, above, further in view of Grauss et. al. (DE 102019118500 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Folch modified by Mayer teaches the disc brake of claim 1.
Folch modified by Mayer does not explicitly teach the tube elastically extends.
Grauss teaches the use of a tube that elastically extends (see [0049]).
It would have been obvious to combine a tube that elastically extends of Grauss with disc brake of Folch modified by Mayer in order to ensure the connection between the hydraulic space and the fluid supply is maintained without interrupting or damaging the fluid supply during operation (see DE 102019118500 A1 [Grauss]; [0049]).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folch (US 4553644 A) in view of Friedl (DE 102020200132 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Folch discloses an inner brake pad (4) and an outer brake pad disposed on both sides of the brake disc (2); an inner back plate and an outer back plate (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2) supporting outer sides of the inner brake pad (4) and the outer brake pad, respectively, with the brake disc (2) interposed therebetween (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2); a hydraulic space (7); and a tube (8) through which the working fluid is transferred to the hydraulic space (7), wherein the inner back plate includes: a first plate (A) (see annotated Fig. 2 below) supporting a rear surface of the inner brake pad; and a second plate (33) fixed to a rear surface of the first plate.
Folch does not disclose the hydraulic space being formed inside the back plate and the second plate being connected to a tube.
Friedl teaches an inner back plate (3) with a hydraulic space (5) formed inside and a tube (6) connected to the plate.
It would have been obvious to substitute the inner back plate (3) with hydraulic space (9) of Friedl for the second plate (33) and connected hydraulic space (7) of Folch in order to reduce residual friction present in piston systems (see DE 102020200132 A1 [Friedel]; [0004], [0016]).
PNG
media_image1.png
552
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding Claim 9, Folch discloses the first back plate (A) (see annotated Fig. 2 above) supports the brake pad (4).
Friedel teaches the second inner back plate (3) is formed of a flexible material (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0033])
Regarding Claim 10, Friedl teaches the second plate (3) comprises a connecting hole (5) connected to the hydraulic space (9), in which the end of the tube is fixed, and through which the working fluid passes (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Friedl teaches the connecting hole (5) is formed in a rear central portion of the second plate (3) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Friedl teaches wherein the hydraulic space (9) is formed over an entire surface of the second plate (3) so that the entire surface of the inner brake pad (2) is uniformly pressed when the working fluid is introduced through the tube (see Fig. 1).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folch (US 4553644 A) as modified by Friedl (DE 102020200132 A1) in Claim 8, above, further in view of Mayer [2015] (DE 102015001541 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Folch modified by Friedl teaches the disc brake of Claim 10.
Folch modified by Friedl does not teach a plurality of tubes and connecting holes providing fluid flow into the hydraulic space.
Mayer [2015] teaches the tube (6) and the connecting hole are provided as a plurality of tubes (8) and a plurality of connecting holes, and the working fluid may be introduced into the hydraulic space (5) through the plurality of tubes and connecting holes (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to combine the plurality of tubes and connecting holes of Mayer [2015] with the disc brake second plate of Folch modified by Friedl in order to provide the system with the ability to remove fluid for cooling or air bleeding while still supplying fluid to the system (see DE 102015001541 A1 [Mayer]; [0007]).
Regarding Claim 14, Mayer [2015] teaches the connecting holes are formed to be spaced apart from each other at equal intervals in a horizontal direction on both sides from the center of the second plate (see Fig. 1).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folch (US 4553644 A) as modified by Friedl (DE 102020200132 A1) in Claim 8, above, further in view of Grauss et. al. (DE 102019118500 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Folch modified by Friedl teaches the disc brake of claim 8.
Folch modified by Friedl does not explicitly teach the tube elastically extends.
Grauss teaches the use of a tube that elastically extends (see [0049]).
It would have been obvious to combine a tube that elastically extends of Grauss with disc brake of Folch modified by Friedl in order to ensure the connection between the hydraulic space and the fluid supply is maintained without interrupting or damaging the fluid supply during operation (see DE 102019118500 A1 [Grauss]; [0049]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00.
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.
/S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616