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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments submitted on 06/03/2026 have been considered and entered. Claims 1-9, 13 and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-15 are pending in the present application.
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.
Claims 3, 5 and 6 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 3, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leopold (DE 1655367 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 13-15, Leopold discloses a friction unit (fig. 1; the abstract) for a brake of a vehicle, comprising:
a support plate (2, 5);
a friction pad (6) disposed on the support plate and including a guide recess (note the recess portions 9, 10, 15) that extends between a friction surface of the friction pad (6) and the support plate (2, 5);
a column shaped distance element (1) movably guided in the guide recess of the friction pad; and
a spring (3) that, with a first end, contacts the support plate (2, 5) and, with a second end, contacts the column shaped distance element (1),
wherein the column shaped distance element (1) has a first end in contact with the spring (3) and a second end, an adjacent portion of the second end protruding from the friction surface of the friction pad (note the end portion of element 1 facing the rotor 7, extending out of the friction pad 6 and engaging the rotor 7).
Re-claim 4, Leopold discloses the column shaped distance element (1) and the guide recess (note the recess portions 9, 10, 15) comprise corresponding cross-sectional shapes.
Re-claim 7, Leopold discloses the column shaped distance element (1) is elastically deformable along its longitudinal extension.
Re-claim 8, Leopold discloses the support plate (2, 5) includes an accommodation recess (15) formed in a contact surface facing the friction pad, wherein the spring (3), at least in the region of its first end, is received within the accommodation recess.
Re-claim 11, Leopold discloses the spring (3) is a coil compression spring, a leaf spring, a disc spring, or an elastic block.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serra et al. (US 2019/0078630 A1) in view of Leopold (DE 1655367 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 13-15, Serra et al. discloses a friction unit (figs. 4a-5; the abstract) for a brake of a vehicle, comprising:
a support plate (2);
a friction pad (4) disposed on the support plate (2) and including a guide recess (3) that extends between a friction surface (4a) of the friction pad (4) and the support plate (2).
Serra et al. discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including a thermoelectric module but fails to disclose a sensor module comprising a column shaped distance element movably guided in the guide recess of the friction pad, and a spring that, with a first end, contacts the support plate and, with a second end, contacts the distance element as recited in the claim. However, as set forth above, Leopold discloses a support plate (2, 5); a friction pad (6) disposed on the support plate and including a guide recess (note the recess portions 9, 10, 15) that extends between a friction surface of the friction pad (6) and the support plate (2, 5); a column shaped distance element (1) movably guided in the guide recess of the friction pad; and a spring (3) that, with a first end, contacts the support plate (2, 5) and, with a second end, contacts the column shaped distance element (1), wherein the column shaped distance element (1) has a first end in contact with the spring (3) and a second end, an adjacent portion of the second end protruding from the friction surface of the friction pad (note the end portion of element 1 facing the rotor 7, extending out of the friction pad 6 and engaging the rotor 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to modify the pad assembly of Serra et al. to include a sensor module comprising a column shaped distance element movably guided in the guide recess of the friction pad, and a spring that, with a first end, contacts the support plate and, with a second end, contacts the distance element as taught by Leopold will further provide measurement of pad wear and improving braking efficiency.
Re-claim 2, Serra et al. discloses the friction pad has a connection surface lying opposite to the friction surface and being coupled to the support plate, wherein the friction pad has a pad thickness measured between the friction surface and the connection surface, but fails to disclose a length of the distance element lies within a range between 75 % and 105 %, preferably between 80 % and 90 % of the pad thickness as recited in the claim. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to have a length of the distance element lies within a range between 75 % and 105 %, preferably between 80 % and 90 % of the pad thickness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art as such range will further improve braking efficiency.
Re-claim 3, Serra et al. fails to disclose the distance element has a length in a range between 9 mm and 13 mm, preferably between 9.5 mm and 11 mm as recited in the claim. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to have a length in a range between 9 mm and 13 mm, preferably between 9.5 mm and 11 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art as such range will further improve braking efficiency.
Re-claim 5, Serra et al. fails to disclose the distance element comprises a diameter in a range between 4 mm and 8 mm, preferably between 5 mm and 7 mm as recited in the claim. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to have the range between 4 mm and 8 mm, preferably between 5 mm and 7 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art as such range will further improve braking efficiency.
Re-claim 9, Serra et al. discloses the spring, in a non-tensioned state, protrudes from the contact surface of the support plate into the guide recess of the friction pad by a partial length lying in a distance but fails to disclose a range between 5 % and 50 % of its total length as recited in the claim. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to have the range between 5 % and 50 % of its total length, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art as such range will further improve braking efficiency.
Re-claim 10, Serra et al. discloses the spring, in a non-tensioned state, protrudes into the guide recess by a length, but fails to disclose the length being equal to or smaller than 50 % of a total length of the guide recess as recited in the claim. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to have the length being equal to or smaller than 50 % of a total length of the guide recess, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art as such range will further improve braking efficiency.
Re-claim 12, Serra et al. discloses the friction pad includes a base layer (8) coupled to the support plate (2), and a friction layer (4) disposed on the base layer (8), wherein a surface of the friction layer (4) facing away from the base layer (8) forms the friction surface of the friction pad, and wherein the guide recess extends from the surface of the friction layer completely through the friction pad (4b).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serra et al. (US 2019/0078630 A1) in view of Leopold (DE 1655367 A1), and further in view of Ivanovich (RU 2340805 C1).
Re-claim 6, Serra et al. discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including the distance element but fails to disclose the element is made of a material having a friction coefficient with cast iron in a range between 0.05 and 0.1,preferably between 0.07 and 0.09. However, Ivanovich discloses a friction pad assembly comprising an insert is made of high-strength or malleable cast iron with friction coefficient lower than 4 to 20%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to form the distance element of Serra et al. to be made of cast iron as taught by Ivanovich will provide longer service life, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art in order to prolong the service life.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on some reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MAHBUBUR RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-7218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 10pm EST.
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 5712727124. 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.
/MAHBUBUR RASHID/ Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights