DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants argue that the caliper of Adam et al. fails to teach a mounting portion.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner points to the two apertures at the bottom of the holder web (14) which are clearly used to attach the brake caliper to an axle support bracket or a spindle knuckle bracket. This is an inherent feature mentioned in a number of the other cited references (see 8 in fig. 2 of US 8,540,061; see 8 in fig. 1 of US 4,044,864), and absolutely necessary to support the brake caliper. Regardless of the non-disclosed bracket which this feature is attached to, the rejection is made as a combination with Goettker, specifically addressing this element (see rejection below).
Applicants argue that Goettker fail to teach a one-piece torque plate with opening shaped to receive a vehicle axle.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner points to figs. 1 and 2, which show that the plate is formed as a single piece, and includes an arcuate opening (49) to provide clearance for the spindle (26) and axle assembly (24) to pass through. This opening is interpreted to encompass applicants claimed “opening shaped to receive a vehicle axle”.
Applicants argue that Goettker fail to teach the claimed carrier and pad support structure of applicant’s invention.
In response to applicant’s arguments, and as mentioned above, applicants are arguing against the references individually when the rejection is based upon a combination of references. The examiner notes that Adam et al. teaches the features which applicant is concerned (see rejection below).
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam et al. (US 2019/0010999) in view of Goettker (US 5,826,682).
In Re claim 1, Adam et al. disclose a disc brake system (figs. 1, 2, 6), comprising: a mounting portion (bottom of 14 in fig. 2) inherently connected with an axle support bracket or a spindle knuckle bracket (not shown); a carrier (14, 14’); and inboard and outboard brake pads (1, 7, 8), wherein the carrier comprises: brake pad receiving openings (central hollow portion); a leading pad support (11); a trailing pad support (12), wherein at least one of the leading and trailing pad supports includes a bearing surface (9, 10) facing away from the pad receiving opening, and wherein the brake pads comprise a second bearing surface (see lower portions of 7 and 8) facing towards the first bearing surface and are configured to engage (see contact area 9, 10) when the disc brake system is actuated such that the brake pads are put in tension. Adam et al. fail to disclose a torque plate being associated as a single-piece with the mounting portion of the carrier.
Goettker is related to the art of vehicle brake systems, and teaches providing a single-piece torque plate, mounting portion, and carrier (18; figs. 1 and 2). This assembly makes possible fewer components and a simplified and more robust assembly of the vehicle brake system at each wheel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the brake system of Adam et al. to have a single-piece torque plate, mounting portion, and carrier, as taught by Goettker, to allow for a unified and simplified assembly.
The examiner notes that it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP2144.04).
In Re claim 2, the inboard and outboard mounting portions are aligned.
In Re claims 3 and 13, see connecting beam between 14 and 14’ in fig. 2 of Adam et al..
In Re claims 6 and 8, see pairs of bearing surfaces (9, 10) in figs. 3 and 4 of Adam et al..
In Re claim 9, see brake pad support slots (3, 4) and brake pad tabs (7, 8) in figs. 2 and 3 of Adam et al..
In Re claim 11, see central friction material (1) and backing plate (5) of Adam et al..
In Re claim 12, Adam et al. disclose a disc brake system (figs. 1, 2, 6), comprising: a mounting portion (bottom of 14 in fig. 2) inherently connected with an axle support bracket or a spindle knuckle bracket (not shown); and a carrier (14, 14’); wherein the carrier comprises: brake pad receiving openings (central hollow portion); a leading pad support (11); a trailing pad support (12), wherein at least one of the leading and trailing pad supports includes a slot (3, 4) with a bearing surface (9, 10) facing away from the pad receiving opening (see figs. 3 and 4). Adam et al. fail to disclose a torque plate being associated as a single-piece with the mounting portion of the carrier.
Goettker is related to the art of vehicle brake systems, and teaches providing a single-piece torque plate, mounting portion, and carrier (18). This assembly makes possible fewer components and a simplified and more robust assembly of the vehicle brake system at each wheel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the brake system of Adam et al. to have a single-piece torque plate, mounting portion, and carrier, as taught by Goettker, to allow for a unified and simplified assembly. The examiner notes that it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP2144.04).
In Re claim 17, Adam et al. discloses a method of actuating a disc brake system, comprising: engaging a rotor (not shown; par. 0015) with inboard and outboard brake pads (5); applying a tension force to a leading end of at least one of the inboard and/or outboard brake pads (see carrier bearing faces 9, 10; and associated brake pad claws 7 and 8); and absorbing the tension force with a carrier portion (see 9 and 10) and a mounting portion (14, 14’) inherently mounted on an axle support bracket or a spindle knuckle bracket (not disclosed). Adam et al. fail to disclose a torque plate being associated as a single-piece with the mounting portion of the carrier.
Goettker is related to the art of vehicle brake systems, and teaches providing a single-piece torque plate, mounting portion, and carrier (18). This assembly makes possible fewer components and a simplified and more robust assembly of the vehicle brake system at each wheel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the brake system of Adam et al. to have a single-piece torque plate, mounting portion, and carrier, as taught by Goettker, to allow for a unified and simplified assembly. The examiner notes that it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP2144.04).
In Re claim 18 and 20, see carrier leading and trailing bearing faces (9, 10); and associated brake pad leading and trailing claws (7 and 8) of Adam et al..
In Re claim 19, the claim limitation is related to a material property of the brake pad carrier and mounting portion. The examiner asserts that essentially every material has at least some amount of elastic bending (Young’s/elastic modulus), thus encompassing the claim limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights