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 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) 1, 2, 5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0141514 A1 to Palkovic in view of US 4,606,435 to Johnson.
Re-claim 1, Palkovic discloses a light emitting device provided in a vehicle, the light emitting device comprising: a caliper body 14; an installation bracket (i.e. pocket or recess 34, as is consistent with the instant invention, or see figure 6 and holder element that holds each LED 20) is located on an accommodation surface inside the caliper body (see figure 3); a light emitting module 10 is installed on the installation bracket and emits light into a gap of the caliper body (a gap is not defined and is broadly interpreted as any opening, the light is emitted out from the recess 34 through a transparent faceplate 24, see figure 6); a cable 21 is connected to the light emitting module; an electronic control unit 42 (ECU) is connected to the cable, the ECU controls at least one of a color, brightness, or cycle of the light emitted from the light emitting module (see paragraphs 28-30); the light emitting module includes: a plurality of light emitting diodes 20; an LED array member (see figure 6 and line connecting the adjacent LEDs) on which the plurality of LEDs are arranged); a brake pad 32 is apart from the installation bracket and located inside the caliper body. However, Palkovic fail to teach the light emitting module including a wear sensor coupled to the LED array member and in contact with the brake pad, and the ECU controlling the light emitting module based on a change in resistance value measured by the wear sensor.
Johnson teaches a brake pad wear sensor 24 connected to an LED (module 64/68) that changes color as the brake pad is worn, as a result of change in resistance (see abstract and column 3 lines 12-67 to column 4 lines 1-18). The module is in contact with the brake pad 15 (see figure 1 and sensor 24 connected to the backing plate of the brake pad). This arrangement allows for an easy identification of a worn brake pad based upon a LED color change. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the light emitting module and ECU arrangement of Palkovic with a means of changing the LED color based upon a change in resistance indicative of a brake pad wear as taught by Johnson, thus making for easy identification of a worn brake pad.
Re-claim 2, the LED array member includes a bendable strap or line form.
Re-claim 5, the light emitting module includes a cover member 24 that covers the plurality of LEDs and surround the LED array member.
Re-claim 6, the LED array member is attached to the installation bracket (i.e. plate holding the LEDs or recess holding the assembly) through an adhesive or fastened and coupled to the installation bracket through a bolt (see bolts 28 that hold the LED array member to the recess/bracket).
Re-claim 8, the ECU controls the light emitting module based on driving information of the vehicle (see at least paragraphs 29 and 30, such as during brake events, weather events or desired brightness).
Re-claim 9, the driving information includes at least one of information on a driving mode (such as a brake event), a driving direction, parking (see paragraph 30), or an external environment (such as when fog lights or headlights are turned on).
Re-claim 10, Palkovic discloses a vehicle comprising: a vehicle body 40; a plurality of wheels are located at a lower part of the vehicle body to rotate and including a brake disc (see figure 5); a plurality of light emitting devices are provided in the plurality of wheels, respectively, at least one of the plurality of light emitting devices includes: a caliper body 14 into which one end of the brake disc 16 is inserted; an installation bracket (i.e. pocket or recess 34, as is consistent with the instant invention, or see figure 6 and holder element that holds each LED 20) is located on an accommodation surface inside the caliper body; a light emitting module 10 is installed on the installation bracket and emits light into a gap of the caliper body; a cable 21 is connected to the light emitting module; an electronic control unit 42 (ECU) is connected to the cable, wherein the ECU controls at least one of a color, brightness, or cycle of the light emitted from the light emitting module (see paragraphs 28-30); the light emitting module includes: a plurality of light emitting diodes 20; an LED array member (see figure 6 and line connecting the adjacent LEDs) on which the plurality of LEDs are arranged); a brake pad 32 is apart from the installation bracket and located inside the caliper body. However, Palkovic fail to teach the light emitting module including a wear sensor coupled to the LED array member and in contact with the brake pad, and the ECU controlling the light emitting module based on a change in resistance value measured by the wear sensor.
Johnson teaches a brake pad wear sensor connected to an LED (module) that changes color as the brake pad is worn, as a result of change in resistance (see abstract and column 3 lines 12-67 to column 4 lines 1-18). The module is in contact with the brake pad 15 (see figure 1 and sensor 24 connected to the backing plate of the brake pad). This arrangement allows for an easy identification of a worn brake pad based upon a LED color change. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the light emitting module and ECU arrangement of Palkovic with a means of changing the LED color based upon a change in resistance indicative of a brake pad wear as taught by Johnson, thus making for easy identification of a worn brake pad.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palkovic in view of Johnson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0032739 A1 to Krause et al.
Palkovic show the cable extending to the caliper. However, Palkovic fails to teach a cable holder coupled to the caliper to support the cable, or the holder includes a hook.
Krause et al. teach a cable holding device coupled to a caliper that allows the cable to extend over the caliper as needed. The holding device includes a hook (defined by upper 12 and lower 15 legs) in contact with the cable. This arrangement retains the cable in a desired position, without interfering with the brake system. 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 caliper of Palkovic with a cable holding device having a hook as taught by Krause et al., thus retaining the cable in a desired position, as well as protecting the cable from damage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks regarding Palkovic in view of Johnson have been considered. However, as noted above, the teachings of Johnson appear to show the wear sensor 24 that is coupled to an LED array (at least 64 and 68) is in contact with the brake pad (see figure 1). The brake pad is interpreted as both the friction portion 14 and the backing plate portion 18, as Johnson identifies this entire structure as the brake pad 15. An LED array member is broadly interpreted as having at least two LED’s, which Johnson shows. Furthermore, Johnson is merely relied upon for suggested and teaching the connection of a wear sensor, as part of a brake pad, to an LED indicator. The LED array member is already present in Palkovic, and would serve the same type of function as the LED indicators in Johnson. As modified, the LED array of Palkovic would now change color based upon the wear condition of the brake pad, essentially transitioning from a green color to a red color, or any selected color. This would provide a clear indication to the driver that the brake pad is worn, and in addition, each individual brake pad could now be monitored for wear, as brake pads can experience uneven wear. This feature alone would provide motivation to those skilled in the art. As such the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 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 /THOMAS J WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights