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
Claims 2 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 line 3, “a disc brake” should be changed to “the disc brake”; Claim 12 line 3, the second occurrence of “a disc brake” should be changed to “the disc brake”. 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 1-13 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 1 line 9, the phrase “can be” is not definitive, as it is unclear if the push member requires an actuator, or does not require an actuator.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the piston head" of the first piston in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the piston head" of the second piston in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the head” of said push member in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to their dependence upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 2 line 2, the phrase “in particular” is indefinite.
Regarding claim 4 line 2, the phrase “in particular” is indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the plate" in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the parking brake” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “the plate” should be changed to “the interface plate”.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the push member is actuatable either hydraulically and/or electromechanically. However, the claim then clearly recites that in step (a) the push member is actuated hydraulically. This would appear to indicate the push member is actuated only by hydraulic actuation. The applicant should clarify what type of actuator the push member is provided with.
Regarding claim 11 line 2, the phrase “can be” is not definitive, as it is unclear if the push member is actuated electrically, or does not require electrical actuation.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the pad support" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected due to their dependence upon claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1-3, 6, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,651,896 to Fannin.
Re-claim 1, Fannin discloses a disc brake including: at least one first brake pad 24 mounted in a sliding manner relative to the disc 26, the first brake pad comprising a pad support and a friction material (see figure 2), a caliper 12 includes: means for moving the first pad comprising at least a first piston 20 and a second piston 20 (see figure 4) are mounted in a sliding manner in the caliper and are hydraulically actuatable (see column 2 lines 11-13), and move the first brake pad relative to the disc, the disc brake further includes at least one push member 50 mounted in a sliding manner in the caliper and actuated by an actuator (see 85 or 185) that moves the push member axially, the push member is arranged between the first piston and the second piston (see figure 4) along a transverse direction, the disc brake further includes an interface device arranged between the push member 50 and the pad support, the interface device including: an interface plate 30 comprising a first through-opening 35 aligned with the first piston and traversed by a piston head 36 of the first piston (see figure 4) and a second through-opening 35 aligned with the second piston and traversed by a piston head 36 of the second piston 20, the piston heads come into contact with the pad support, a head push member (18) is intended to come into contact with the interface plate (30) between the first (32) and second (34) openings.
Re-claim 2, the interface plate 30 is guided axially relative to the disc and relative to a carrier 10 of the disc brake with a floating caliper.
Re-claim 3, the first and second openings 35 allow the pistons 20 to slide freely.
Re-claim 6, a carrier 10 and a second brake pad 25 is mounted in a sliding manner relative to the carrier.
Re-claim 11, Fannin discloses an interface device, comprising: an interface plate 30 housed between a pad support (backplate) and means for (i.e. hydraulic and mechanical) moving the pad towards a brake disc, the interface plate 30 includes two openings 35 for passage of two hydraulically actuated pistons and a solid central area 31. The elements listed in the preamble are not interpreted as part of or necessary for the claimed invention of “an interface device”. It is further noted that the “can be” recitation renders the method of actuation indefinite, as it is unclear if the push member is actuated electrically, or just can be electrically actuated.
Re-claim 12, the interface device is part of a floating caliper disc brake.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fannin.
Re-claims 4 and 13, Fannin teaches the interface plate made from a rigid material (see column 2 lines 48-52) so as to prevent deflection. Steel is a commonly known rigid material used extensively in the automotive arts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the interface plate of Fannin from steel, as this material is commonly used in the automotive arts, is cost effective and is substantially rigid when necessary.
Claim(s) 5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fannin in view of US 9,889,833 to Burgoon et al.
Re-claims 5 and 9, Fannin fails to teach the push member (as part of a parking brake system) hydraulically or electromechanically actuated, but rather teach a hydraulic release 185 or mechanical actuation 85.
Burgoon et al. teach a parking brake actuated either hydraulically or electrically (see column 5 lines 58-63), as these are known substitutes for mechanically actuated brakes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the mechanically actuated push member of Fannin with either a hydraulically or electromechanically actuated push member as taught by Burgoon et al., as any of these actuation systems are known in the art and yield the same result.
Re-claims 8 and 10, Fannin teaches first and second pistons coming into direct contact with pad supports through the interface plate 30 and apply the friction material against the brake disc. However, Fannin fails to teach the method for actuating a parking brake as recited in the instant claim.
Burgoon et al. teach a method for activating a parking brake, including:
a) moving first and second pistons (residing in bores 80) by applying hydraulic pressure so as to come into direct contact with a pad support to apply the friction material of the brake pad against the brake disc, b) maintaining hydraulic pressure, c) moving a push member 20 by means of an actuator so as to bear against the friction material of the brake pad against the brake disc through, d) blocking the push member in position, e) releasing hydraulic pressure; followed by a deactivation of the parking brake: moving the first and second pistons by application of hydraulic pressure so as to exert additional force on the friction material of the brake pad against the brake disc, maintaining hydraulic pressure, moving the push member, by means of the actuator, away from the pads, releasing hydraulic pressure (see column 8 lines 16-36). The recited steps allow for ease of parking brake application, as the hydraulic fluid provides the primary means of moving the pads into contact with the brake disc, whereas the pushing member is merely utilized for maintaining the applied force against the brake disc. This arrangement reduces the necessary size of the pushing member actuator and reduces the wear upon the actuator. 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 the parking brake method steps of Burgoon et al. in the brake disc apparatus of Fannin when having applied the parking brake in Fannin, as this would have reduce wear and improved performance of the parking brake actuator.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fannin in view of US 3,498,421 to Ohmayer.
Re-claim 7, the disc brake of Fannin includes a caliper case 12 and a second brake pad 25. However, Fannin fails to teach the disc brake as a fixed caliper disc brake. Fannin does teach known fixed caliper disc brakes (see column 1 line 16, in US 3498421).
Ohmayer teaches a fixed caliper disc brake, which is an alternative to a sliding caliper disc brake, and commonly known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the disc brake and interface device of Fannin in a fixed caliper disc brake of the type taught by Ohmayer, as this is merely an alternative brake disc arrangement capable of use with the interface device of Fannin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. De Hoff, Wood, Evans, Harrison, Parsons, Wang, Kistner and Willey each teach a brake apparatus having a service brake and parking brake integrated into a caliper. Kondo and Knechtges each teach a method of applying a parking brake.
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
March 18, 2026
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616