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.
Claims 12-28 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 12 around line 22 the limitation of “..at least one light lamella (15) overhangingly protrudes from … said outer caliper body surface (11)..” is not understood from the description in the specification and as shown in the drawings. While the lamella 15 is seen to ‘protrude from’ an outer caliper body surface 11 the limitation of “overhangingly protrudes from .. said surface 11 is confusing since it is unclear what the lamella 15 “overhangs” from an ordinary plane meaning of this word.
Claim 24 contains the same problem.
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) 12-15,17-19,22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith U.S. 20060268562 in view of Palkovic U.S. 2009/0141514.
Regarding claim 12, subject to the 112 1st rejection above (and as best understood) Smith shows in 2 all of the limitations, as broadly claimed including a caliper 14 and at least one ‘light lamella’ 12,20 protruding from an ‘outer caliper body surface’ – surface of the brake caliper facing away from the outer braking surface of the brake disc in an axial direction, the light lamella 12 being made of plastic material (see para 0018), and having at least two opposite plate surfaces and plate edges that joint the two plate surfaces (as readily apparent from the figures), the light lamella 12 comprises at least one lighting body 22 that comprises at least one light source (see para 0018).
Lacking in Smith is a specific statement that the light lamella is made of transparent or translucent material.
The reference to Palkovic also shows an illumination system for a brake caliper in figure 2 and shows a translucent or transparent backplate 24 that may be made of plastic with an illumination source at 20. See paras 0024,0025 in their entirety. The plate 24 is located similarly to that of Smith—at an outboard portion 12 of the brake caliper 14.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have made the light lamella 12 of Smith from a ‘translucent material’ , as taught by Palkovic, since Smith is not specific as to the type of plastic material that must be used for 12. Therefore it would have been an obvious choice from a wide variety of available materials known to those in the art.
Regarding claim 13 from the discussion in para 0018 in Smith and para 0024 in Palkovic these limitations are considered to be met.
Regarding claims 14 (limitation on first 3 lines) and 15 it would have been obvious to have provided some type of ‘light lamella groove’, as broadly claimed, onto the surface of the brake caliper body in Smith simply to assist in securing the lamella 12 arrangement to it.
Regarding claim 17 to have made the lamella plate 12 from PMMA (a known transparent lightweight thermoplastic) would have simply been an obvious choice of commercially available materials.
Regarding claim 18, as broadly claimed, the two opposite plate surfaces 18 in Smith are arranged parallel to each other.
Regarding claim 19, as broadly claimed, (the at least one plate is oriented in the axial direction, arranging two opposite plate surfaces (at either end – see lead line 12) so that the two opposite plate surfaces 12 ‘comprise’ the axial direction.
Regarding claim 22, as broadly claimed, the lamella 12 of Smith is arranged longitudinal to said at least one bridge and runs at least a portion of the bridge.
Regarding claim 23 as broadly claimed the plate edges form a polygonal or square/rectangular shaped outline.
Regarding claim 24, as broadly claimed, the lamella plate 12 of Smith protrudes from at least three sides of the caliper body.
Regarding claim 25 these limitations are met.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 20,21,26-28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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
1/11/26
Prosecution Insights