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 Arguments
Applicant Contends, in Applicants arguments filed 13th May 2026, that “Kim fails to teach or suggest” the limitations “wherein the lower body is spaced apart from a lower end of the brake pad” of Claim 10 and Amended Claim 1. This argument is not persuasive. “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning” (see MPEP 2111.01). Both the limitations “the lower body” and “spaced apart from a lower end of the brake pad” are broad. While Kim does disclose a lower end support portion 424, this part is not interpreted as “the lower body”. In Non-Final Rejection Filed 13th Feburary 2026, lateral support portion 423, 433, a distinct and separate element from 424, is interpreted as “the lower body”, which is disclosed as spaced apart from the lower end of the brake pad (see US 20220403900 A1 [Kim]; Fig. 4, Fig. 6, Fig. 9) and “configured to support a lateral surface of the pad plate” (see US 20220403900 A1 [Kim]; [0136]). Furthermore, this interpretation follows Applicants own logic as Pad Liner 120 is disclosed as one-piece plate made of broadly defined Upper Body 121, Pad Support 122, Lower body 123 (see Applicant: Fig. 5A, Specification [0065]). Lastly, Original Claim 10 and Amended Claim 1 use the claim language “comprising”, this term “is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements” such as the lower end support portion 424 being a distinct and separate element (see MPEP 2111.03). Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1-10 is maintained.
Applicant Contends, in Applicant arguments filed 13th May 2026, that new dependent claims 11 and 12 are “allowable over the prior art of record.” This argument is persuasive. New grounds for rejection are presented below, as necessitated by this amendment.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 20220403900 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a brake device comprising: a caliper body (100, 200); brake pads (120, 110) mounted in the caliper body (140); a pad liner (400) configured to support the brake pads (3, 4); and a pad pusher (500) configured to push each of the brake pads (3, 4), wherein each of the brake pads (3,4) includes protrusions protruding from both side surfaces thereof (330, 340), wherein the caliper body includes guide grooves (223, 263, 233, 273) defined therein to guide the protrusions, respectively, wherein the brake pad are movable by being guided by the guide grooves (see Fig. 1, Fig. 6, Fig. 7), wherein the pad liner includes: a flat plate-type upper body (420) with legs each extending downwards (421, 431); a pad support connected to a lower end of the corresponding leg to support a protrusion of each of the brake pads (422, 432); and a lower body connected to a lower end of the pad support and extending downwards (423, 433) wherein the lower body is spaced apart from a lower end of the brake pad (see Fig. 9).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20220403900 A1), as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Hampson (US 20180216681 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses the brake device of claim 1.
Kim does not disclose the brake device being a mono block type caliper body.
Hampson teaches a disc brake caliper body of a mono block type (see [0015, Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to combine the mono block type caliper body of Hampson with the brake device of Kim in order to provide a robust structure with minimized mass (see US 2018216681 A1 [Hampson]; [0015]).
Claims 3-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20220403900 A1), as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Barillot et. al. (US 6527090 B1).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim discloses the brake device of claim 1, wherein the pad liner includes: a flat plate-type upper body (420, 430) with legs each extending downwards; a pad support (422, 432) connected to a lower end of each leg to support one of the protrusions of each brake pad; and a lower body (423, 433) connected to a lower end of the pad support (see Fig. 9)
Kim does not disclose a hooking protrusion included in the upper body.
Barillot teaches wherein the upper body includes a hooking protrusion (17) engaged with a portion of the caliper body (see Fig. 1, Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to combine the hooking protrusion of Barillot with the brake device of Kim in order to securely fasten the pad liner to the caliper body, preventing accidental breaking of the brake device structure (see US 6527090 B1 [Barillot]; 3:53-67, 4:1-14).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim discloses a brake device wherein the pad support includes: an upper plate (A) (see Annotated Fig. 9 below) connected to the lower end of each leg and adjacent to a to-surface of the corresponding protrusion; a side plate (422, 432) connected to and extending downwards from the upper plate and adjacent to a side surface of the protrusion; and a lower plate (B) (see Annotated Fig. 9 below) connected to a lower end of the side plate and adjacent to a bottom surface of the protrusion, wherein a guide space where the protrusion is guided is defined by the upper plate, the side plate, and the lower plate of the pad support (see Annotated Fig. 9 below).
Kim does not disclose wherein the lower plate is convex upwards to support the protrusion.
Barillot teaches wherein the lower plate is convex upwards to support the protrusion (47) (see Fig. 1, Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to combine the convex part of the lower plate of Barillot with the brake device of Kim in order to improve the torsional strength of the pad support (see US 6527090 B1 [Barillot]; 4:63067, 5:1-14).
PNG
media_image1.png
668
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9
Regarding Claim 5, Kim discloses a brake device wherein the pad support further includes a return spring (C) (see Annotated Fig. 9 Above) forming an inclination at a predetermined angle from an inner edge of one of the upper plates, the side plate, and the lower plate and extending outwards within the guide space (see Annotated Fig. 9 Above).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim discloses a pad liner (400) mounted in a brake device (100) including brake pads (300), the pad liner comprising: a flat plate-type upper body (420) with legs each extending downwards (421, 431); a pad support connected to a lower end of the corresponding leg to support a protrusion of each of the brake pads (422, 432); and a lower body connected to a lower end of the pad support and extending downwards (423, 433), wherein the lower body is spaced apart from a lower end of the brake pad (see Fig. 1, Fig. 6, Fig. 9).
Kim does not disclose wherein the upper body includes a hooking protrusion engaged with a caliper body of the brake device.
Barillot teaches wherein the upper body includes a hooking protrusion (17) engaged with a caliper body of the brake device (see Fig. 1, Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious combine the hooking protrusion of Barillot with the Pad Liner of Kim in order to securely fasten the pad liner to the caliper body, preventing accidental breaking of the brake device structure (see US 6527090 B1 [Barillot]; 3:53-67, 4:1-14).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20220403900 A1), as modified by Barillot (US 6527090 B1) as applied to Claim 5, above, further in view of Kamiya (US 20140345984 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim modified by Barillot teaches the brake device of claim 5.
Kim modified by Barillot does not teach wherein each of the protrusions includes a first inclined surface formed along one of an upper edge, a lower edge, and an outer edge of a front surface thereof corresponding to the return spring.
Kamiya teaches wherein a protrusion includes a first inclined surface (16) formed along one of an upper edge, a lower edge, and an outer edge of a front surface thereof corresponding to the return spring (3) (see Fig. 7, Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to combine the teachings of an inclined surface on the protrusion corresponding to a return spring of Kamiya with the brake device of Kim modified by Barillot in order to ensure proper engagement of the return spring with the pad, enabling the pad to return properly (see US 20140345984 A1 [Kamiya]; [0030]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20220403900 A1), as modified by Barillot (US 6527090 B1), and as modified by Kamiya (US 20140345984 A1) as applied to Claim 6, above, further in view of Lou (US 20150267763 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim modified by Barillot and Miyake teaches the brake device of claim 6.
Kim modified by Barillot and Miyake appears to, but does not explicitly, teach wherein each of the protrusions further includes: a second inclined surface formed along an upper edge of a rear surface thereof; and a third inclined surface formed along a lower edge of the rear surface thereof.
Lou teaches a pad wherein each of the protrusions (14) further includes: a second inclined surface formed along an upper edge of a rear surface thereof; and a third inclined surface formed along a lower edge of the rear surface thereof (see Fig. 3, [0026]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to combine the inclined surfaces formed on the protrusions of Lou with the brake device of Kim modified by Barillot and Kamiya in order to control the amount of or create contract friction with the Pad Liner, to slow down or stop the motion of the brake pad (see US 20150267762 A1 [Lou]; [0026]).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20220403900 A1), as modified by Barillot (US 6527090 B1), as modified by Kamiya (US 20140345984 A1) as modified by Lou (US 20150267763 A1), as applied to Claim 7, above, further in view of Mallmann (US 20160215842 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim modified by Barillot, Kamiya, and Lou teaches wherein an end of the return spring supports the first inclined surface of the corresponding protrusion (see US 20140345984 A1 [Kamiya]; [0030], Fig. 7).
Kim modified does not explicitly detail wherein the end of the return spring includes a curved surface formed by being bent in a rearward direction of the pad liner.
Mallmann teaches a pad lining with an attached return spring (13) wherein the end of the return spring includes a curved surface formed by being bent in a rearward direction of the pad liner (see Fig. 7, Fig. 9, [0035]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to combine the return spring of Mallmann with the brake device of Kim modified by Barillot, Kamiya, and Lou in order to account for wear compensation within the return spring, and ensure the spring still performs its return function when in the wear compensated state (see US 20160215842 A1 [Mallmann]; [0011-0012]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim modified by Baillot, Kamiya, and Lou teaches wherein at least one of the upper body, the lower body, or the side plate includes a reinforcement portion extending forwards from an outer edge of the pad liner (see US 20220403900 A1 [Kim]; Fig. 9).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20220403900 A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Byeon (KR 101892925 B1).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim discloses the brake device of Claim 1.
Kim does not disclose, wherein each of the protrusions includes a first inclined surface formed along an outermost edge, in a first direction, of a front surface thereof corresponding to a return spring of the pad support, wherein the first direction is a direction in which the protrusion protrudes from the corresponding side surface of the brake pad.
Byeon teaches wherein each of the protrusions (122) includes a first inclined surface (123) formed along an outermost edge, in a first direction, of a front surface thereof corresponding to a return spring (114) of the pad support (110), wherein the first direction is a direction in which the protrusion protrudes from the corresponding side surface of the brake pad (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to combine the teachings of Byeon with the brake device of Kim in order to reduce drag and make the braking operation smoother (see KR 101892925 B1 [Byeon]; [0006-0007]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20220403900 A1) as modified by Byeon (KR 101892925 B1) in Claim 11, above, further in view of Merrien (US 20160076612 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim modified by Byeon teaches the brake device of Claim 11.
Kim modified by Byeon does not teach wherein each of the protrusions further includes a second inclined surface formed along at least one of an upper edge or a lower edge of a rear surface thereof, such that a width of the protrusion in a second direction decreases towards the upper edge or the lower edge, wherein the second direction is a direction intersecting the first direction and a direction in which the brake pads are pushed by the pad pusher.
Merrien teaches wherein each of the protrusions (26) further includes a second inclined surface (X) (see Annotated Fig. 11 below) formed along at least one of an upper edge or a lower edge (Y) of a rear surface thereof, such that a width of the protrusion in a second direction decreases towards the upper edge or the lower edge (Y), wherein the second direction is a direction intersecting the first direction and a direction in which the brake pads are pushed by the pad pusher (see Fig. 10, Fig. 11, Annotated Fig. 11 below).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to combine the teachings of Merrien with the brake device of Kim modified by Byeon in order to reduce audible noise during braking operation (see US 20160076612 A1 [Merrien]; [0013]).
PNG
media_image2.png
345
252
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 11
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 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
Prosecution Insights