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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 line 2, the phrase “providingthe” should be changed to “providing the”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-8 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 6, it is unclear how the shim plate protrudes from a slot formed in the back plate, or is exposed, when instant claim 1 recites the shim plate being embedded in a manner that the shim plate is only exposed to an inner mass of the back plate.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear how the shim plate is attached to the friction pad, when instant claim 1 recites the shim plate being embedded in a manner that the shim plate is only exposed to an inner mass of the back plate.
Claim 8 is rejected due to its dependence upon claim 7.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,563,347 to Hahm.
Re-claim 1, Hahm teaches a brake pad assembly (such as figures 1 and 2), comprising: a back plate (combined plates 1 and 13) comprising an outer surface 14 and an opposing inner surface (surface of 1); a friction pad is associated with the inner surface. Hahm fails to show a shim plate positioned intermediate the friction pad and the outer surface of the back plate, the shim plate is fully embedded in the back plate as to be only exposed to an inner mass of the back plate. Hahm further teaches an insulating member, or shim plate can be sandwiched between the two plates, such as in space 14 (see column 2 lines 34-36 “The insulating member, which is independent of the two plates, can be sandwiched between the latter to space them apart or may be guided in the intermediate plate”). The shim plate reduces noise associate with the brake pad during operation, and is shown in figures 5 and 8 as being sandwiched between the two plates. As per the teachings of Hahm, a shim plate could have been positioned within the closed space 14, such that the shim plate is positioned intermediate the friction pad and the outer surface of the back plate, and the shim plate is fully embedded in the back plate as to be only exposed to an inner mass of the back plate. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and as per the teachings of Hahm, to have positioned the shim plate intermediate the friction pad and the outer surface of the back plate, such that the shim plate is fully embedded in the back plate as to be only exposed to an inner mass of the back plate.
Re-claim 2, the back plate is formed from a first material (such as a metal, see column 3 lines 2-6), the shim plate is formed at least a synthetic resin (see column 3 lines 30-32).
Re-claim 3, the shim plate is formed from at least a polymer (synthetic resin).
Re-claim 5, the shim plate 17” is positioned intermediate the inner surface and the outer surface of the back plate.
Re-claim 6, the shim plate is exposed (as shown in figure 5).
Re-claim 7, a cavity 14 receives the shim plate, the friction pad is attachable to the shim plate (via the back plate 1).
Re-claim 8, the cavity 14 forms a depth equal to the shim plate (see figure 2).
Re-claim 10, Hahm teaches a contact surface of the friction pad 3 extends over at least 70 percent of the back plate 1 surface. With reference to figure 1 and figure 3, the friction pad extends from a bottom up to horizontal dashed line 19, and across the entire back plate. This area is at least 70 percent of the surface area of combined plate 1/13.
Re-claim 11, a thickness of the brake pad assembly is defined by a space between a contact surface of the friction pad and the outer surface of the back plate (such as surface associated with plate 18).
Re-claim 12, the brake pad is utilized on a vehicle.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,563,347 to Hahm in view of JP 10-246257 A to Takagi.
Re-claim 1, Hahm teaches a brake pad assembly (figure 8), comprising: a back plate 13’’’ (combination of plates 16 and 18, and as part of plate 1, all of which form a back plate) comprising an outer surface (a surface of plate 18) and an opposing inner surface (a surface of plate 16); a shim 17 plate; a friction pad is associated with the inner surface, the shim plate is positioned intermediate the friction pad and the outer surface of the back plate, the shim is fully embedded in the back plate. However, Hahm fails to show the shim plate embedded in such a manner as to be only exposed to an inner mass of the back plate.
Takagi teaches a brake pad with a noise dampening structure 9 that is fully embedded within a back plate and thus only exposed to an inner mass of the back plate. Fully embedding the shim plate within the back plate and preventing its exposure to an environment outside the back plate, thus only exposing the shim plate to an inner mass of the back plate, would have protected the shim plate from ingress of foreign matter, and would have contained the shim plate within a desired space. Therefore, as per the suggestions of Takagi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have embedded the shim plate of Hahm entirely within the back plate such that the shim plate is only exposed to an inner mass of the back plate as shown in Takagi, thus protecting the shim plate from external damage as well as maintain the shim plate in a desired position.
Re-claim 2, the back plate is formed from a first material (such as a metal), the shim plate is formed at least a synthetic resin (see column 3 lines 30-32).
Re-claim 3, the shim plate is formed from at least a polymer (synthetic resin).
Re-claim 5, the shim plate 17” is positioned intermediate the inner surface and the outer surface of the back plate.
Re-claim 6, the shim plate is exposed.
Re-claim 7, a cavity receives the shim plate, the friction pad is attachable to the shim plate (via the back plate).
Re-claim 8, the cavity forms a depth equal to the shim plate.
Re-claim 9, Hahm fails to teach in the embodiments of figure 5 and 8 the shim plate extending over at least 70 percent of any of the surfaces of the back plate.
Takagi teaches the damping structure extending over at least 70 percent of the back plate surface (see at least figure 1). This selected size of the shim plate, or damping structure, adjusts the damping frequency or range for the shim plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have extended the shim plate of Hahm to cover at least 70 percent of the back plate surface as shown in Takagi, thus setting the damping range to a desired value.
Re-claim 10, Hahm teaches a contact surface of the friction pad 3 extends over at least 70 percent of the back plate 1 surface. With reference to figure 1 and figure 3, the friction pad extends from a bottom up to horizontal dashed line 19, and across the entire back plate. This area is at least 70 percent of the surface area of combined plate 1/13.
Re-claim 11, a thickness of the brake pad assembly is defined by a space between a contact surface of the friction pad and the outer surface of the back plate (such as surface associated with plate 18).
Re-claim 12, the brake pad is utilized on a vehicle.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Hahm alone, or Hahm in view of Talagi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of JP 62-106132 A to Kani.
Re-claims 13 and 14, Hahm teaches a method for manufacturing the brake pad assembly, comprising the steps of: providing the shim plate 17, at least one layer (such as plate 13) of the back plate forms at least a part of a final thickness of the back plate (the back plate is made up of plates 1 and 13), placing the shim plate on the back plate (such as within space 14 of plate 13), providing a friction material 3 onto the back plate 1 and curing the friction material (i.e. bonded) to the at least one layer (see column 3 lines 2-6), the shim plate is fully embedded within the back plate (see figure 2). However, Hahm is silent regarding at least one layer of the back plate as being molded by a molding apparatus.
Kani teaches a molding process used to manufacture a metal back plate of a brake pad, see page 2 paragraph 14 (of the previously provided translation). A molding process is common for metal plate structures, as this process is a cost effective and efficient method for producing a high volume of plates. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a molding process as taught by Kani when having formed the metal back plates of Hahm, thus forming the plates in a cost effective manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 5-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Okajima teaches a damping material, or shim disposed between two back plate elements.
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 inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128.
The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding
should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW /THOMAS J WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
September 23, 2026
