DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement has been received and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 the limitation of “the part (48) is an ‘extruded’ profile” is not entirely clear from the specification. What exactly are the metes and bounds of this limitation since ‘extrusion’ is a process for forming metal components.
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 3,7,11 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.
Claims 3,7,11 the ‘and/or” limitations should be removed from the claims since they render the claims confusing as to which limitations are being relied upon for patentability.
Claim 9 the limitation of “in particular” should be removed since this constitutes a ‘range within a range limitation’ and renders the claim confusing since it becomes unclear which limitation is being relied upon for patentability.
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.
Claim(s) 1- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiPonio 6,345,701 in view of Hourihan et al. U.S. 20200080605.
Regarding claim 1 DiPonio shows in figures 4 and 5:
Brake pad carrier (60) for a vehicle disc brake, the vehicle disc brake (11) comprises a brake disc (see fig 1-- 52) that is configured to rotate about a rotation axis and a pair of brake pads (64,66) to be carried by the brake pad carrier ), a first brake bad pad (64) being configured to contact a first side face of the brake disc and a second brake pad 66) being configured to contact an opposite second side face of the brake disc), wherein the brake pad carrier 60 comprises: a first portion 72 that is configured to be arranged on the first side face of the brake disc and configured to support the first brake pad 64); a second portion 74 that is configured to be arranged on the second side face of the brake disc and configured to support the second brake pad (66) at least one connecting portion (70) connecting the first portion (72 and the second portion (74) and configured to extend from the first side face to the second side face of the brake disc
Lacking in DiPonio is a showing of the at least one of the first portion 72 the second portion 74 and the connecting portion 70 comprises a part (48) that is at least one of:
a part (48) having a hollow cross-sectional shape, wherein the hollow a) cross-section is at least partially filled with a vibration dampening material (50).
a part (48) comprising sheet metal or sheet plastic, wherein the sheet b) metal or sheet plastic is arranged and/or formed to comprise at least one section in which a vibration dampening material is received.
The reference to Houihan shows a carrier/support bracket at 100 and provides dampers 124a,124b in bores 108a,108b.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have provided the parts 82A,82B of DiPonio with damping members, as shown by Hourihan at 124A,124B, to minimize brake noise, vibration and harshness (Brake NVH), which may be perceived by customers as an indication of a problem with the brake system.
This modification to DiPonio would meet the limitations of part A) above.
Regarding claim 2 Hourihan states in para 0041:
[0041] The damper or damping material may be made from a vibration or noise reducing material like an elastomeric material, like plastic or rubber. The damper or damping material may be soft, resilient, deformable, and/or compliant material. The damper or damping material may include one or more metals, metalloids, nonmetals, or a combination thereof. One or more metals may include steel, titanium, aluminum, lead, or any combination thereof. One or more nonmetals may include one or more polymers, glass (e.g., silica), water, oil, carbon fiber, the like, or any combination thereof. One or more polymers may include one or more elastomeric materials. One or more elastomeric materials may include rubber, silicone, polyurethane, thermoplastics, or any combination thereof. One or more polymers may include one or more granules (e.g., sand, microspheres, etc.), one or more foamed materials, or both. The one or more damper materials may be compressible or incompressible.
Therefore the limitations of claim 2 are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 5 note the bridge portion 74.
Regarding claim 6 note the two connecting portions at 70.
Regarding claims 7,8 as broadly claimed, the respective parts are as per applicant’s.
Claim(s) 4,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiPonio/Hourihan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murata U.S. 20100207341..
Regarding claim 4, subject to the 112 1st rejection above (and as best understood) DiPonio, as modified, lacks specifically showing where the parts 82A,82B have an extruded profile.
The reference to Murata shows a method of making a knuckle for a disc brake system and indicates that the parts 3 are made by an extrusion process. Note these parts 3 also serve as ‘damping members’.
Since extrusion is a well known process for making metal mechanical parts it would have been obvious to have made at least part of the bracket of DiPonio of extrusion simply as the obvious choice of one well known method of manufacture over another dependent upon such well known engineering factors as costs and availability of metal forming apparatus.
Regarding claim 9, as modified above, these limitations would be met.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiPonio in view of DE 19626297 A1.
Regarding claim 10 DiPonio is relied upon for showing a brake carrier in figures 4,5.
Lacking in DiPonio is a specific description of making at least one of the aforementioned portions from sheet metal (i.e. part b) of claim 10 on the last line).
The reference to DE ‘297 indicates it is known that brake carriers/brackets can be made in one piece from sheet metal. See at least the abstract.
It would have been obvious to have made a brake bracket of the type shown in Figures 4,5 of DiPonio from sheet metal, as taught by DE ‘297, dependent upon such well known considerations as costs, weight, type of vehicle application.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiPonio/DE ‘297 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Murata.
Regarding claim 11 DiPonio, as modified, lacks specifically stating what method would be used to form the sheet metal bracket.
The reference to Murata shows a method of making a knuckle for a disc brake system and indicates that the parts 3 are made by an extrusion process.
Since extrusion is a well known process for making metal mechanical parts it would have been obvious to have made at least part of the sheet metal bracket of DiPonio by extrusion simply as the obvious choice of one well known method of manufacture over another dependent upon such well known engineering factors as costs and availability of metal forming apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
Conclusion
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
1/25/26