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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the amendments/remarks filed on 07/17/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending; claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claim Interpretation
The term “pillar” does not have specific definition in the specification. Under BRI, the term “pillar” encompasses any elongated support member, regardless of cross-sectional geometry, including hollow, irregular shapes, cylindrical.
The term “portion” / “part” does not have specific definition in the specification. Under BRI, the term “portion”/ “part” is interpreted as segment or region or piece of a whole structure.
The term “bond” does not have definition in the specification. Under BRI, the term “bond” is interpreted as any connection, joining between two components either directly or indirectly (via other elements in between).
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) 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reuss (US 20180094681 A1) in view Cadaret (US 5484041 A)
Claim 1: Reuss discloses a brake piston (10; Fig.1 and 3. As Fig.1 illustrates a brake assembly 100 with generic disc brake, piston) provided in a brake system of a vehicle and pressing a brake pad (110, 108) to a disc (brake rotor (not shown), see ¶[0053]) by braking hydraulic pressure (brake fluid, ¶[0053]), the brake piston (10) comprising:
a body portion (body of 10) installed in a cylinder (105) provided in a caliper housing (14), being in a shape of a pillar (10 has elongated structural body), and configured to be movable forward and backward (¶[0053]),
wherein the body portion (body of 10; Fig.3) comprises:
a first body portion (see annotated Fig. below) forming an outer part (e.g. region on the outer side body of 10. Note: claim 1 is apparatus claim and the limitation “forming an outer part) of the body portion in a radial direction of the disc (brake rotor) when the brake piston (10) is installed in the brake system; and
a second body portion (see annotated Fig below) forming an inner part (e.g. region on the inner side of body of 10) of the body portion in the radial direction of the disc (brake rotor) when the brake piston (10) is installed in the brake system .
Reuss does not clearly disclose second body portion having a coefficient of elasticity that is different from a coefficient of elasticity of the first body portion.
Cadaret teaches a piston (18) having a first body portion (22) and second body portion (20); wherein the second body portion having a coefficient of elasticity that is different from a coefficient of elasticity of the first body portion (as 20 is plastic and 22 is stainless steel. It is known that plastic have lower coefficient of elasticity than stainless steel-see col.2 lines 24-28 and claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form first and second body portions of Maurer from different materials having different coefficient of elasticity as taught by Cadaret as matter of obvious design choice. In this case, selecting a stainless steel for first body portion of Reuss would increase stiffness and dimensional stability in load bearing regions while selecting lower coefficient of elasticity (i.e. plastic) for second body portion of Reuss would improve deformation, damping. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
PNG
media_image1.png
362
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 11: Reuss discloses a brake system (100; Fig.1) comprising:
a carrier1 in which a pair of brake pads (110/108) are installed to be movable forward and backward (¶[0053]);
a caliper housing (104) slidably installed in the carrier1,
wherein a cylinder (105) is provided in the caliper housing (104); and
a piston (10; Fig.1 and 3) installed in the cylinder (105) and configured to be movable forward and backward (¶[0053]) for pressing one of the brake pads (110/108) to a disc (brake rotor),
wherein the piston (10) comprises a body portion (body of 10; Fig.3) being in a shape of a pillar (10 has elongated structural body),
and the body portion (body of 10) comprises:
a first body portion (see annotated Fig.3 below rejection of claim 1) forming an outer part (e.g. region on the outer side of body of 10) of the body portion in a radial direction of the disc (brake rotor, see ¶[0053]); and
a second body portion (see annotated Fig.3 below rejection of claim 1) forming an inner part (e.g. region on the inner side of body of 10) of the body portion in the radial direction of the disc (brake rotor).
Reuss does not clearly disclose second body portion having a coefficient of elasticity that is different from a coefficient of elasticity of the first body portion.
Cadaret teaches a piston (18) having a first body portion (22) and second body portion (20); wherein the second body portion having a coefficient of elasticity that is different from a coefficient of elasticity of the first body portion (as 20 is plastic and 22 is stainless steel. It is known that plastic have lower coefficient of elasticity than stainless steel-see col.2 lines 24-28 and claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form first and second body portions of Maurer from different materials having different coefficient of elasticity as taught by Cadaret as matter of obvious design choice. In this case, selecting a stainless steel for first body portion of Reuss would increase stiffness and dimensional stability in load bearing regions while selecting lower coefficient of elasticity (i.e. plastic) for second body portion of Reuss would improve deformation, damping. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Claim 2 and 12: Reuss as modified by Cadaret discloses wherein the first body portion (see annotated Fig-3 below rejection of claim 1) is bonded with (via 28 of 16, see ¶[0055], [0048] and Fig.3) the second body portion (see annotated Fig-3 below rejection of claim 1) to form the body portion (body of 10).
Claim 3 and 13: Reuss as modified by Cadaret discloses wherein the first body portion (see annotated Fig-3 below rejection of claim 1) and the second body portion (see annotated Fig-3 below rejection of claim 1) are made of different materials (as taught by Cadaret).
Claim 5 and 15: Reuss as modified by Cadaret discloses wherein the coefficient of elasticity of the first body portion (see annotated Fig-3 below rejection of claim 1) is greater than the coefficient of elasticity of the second body portion (see annotated Fig-3 below rejection of claim 1) (i.e. plastic have lower coefficient of elasticity than stainless steel-see claim 1, as taught by Cadaret).
Claim 6 and 16: Reuss as modified by Cadaret discloses wherein the body portion (body of 10) further includes a third body portion (16-see Fig.3) positioned between the first body portion (see annotated Fig-3 below rejection of claim 1) and the second body portion (see annotated Fig-3 below rejection of claim 1).
Claim 7 and 17: Reuss as modified by Cadaret discloses wherein the first body portion (see annotated Fig-3 below rejection of claim 1) and the second body portion (see annotated Fig-3 below rejection of claim 1) are bonded with the third body portion (16) to form the body portion (body 10) (¶[0055] and ¶[0048])
Claim 8 and 18: Reuss as modified by Cadaret does not explicitly disclose wherein a coefficient of elasticity of the third body portion is different from the coefficients of elasticity of the first body portion and the second body portion.
However, Reuss suggests core member (16) comprising a metallic material; wherein the metallic material includes iron, aluminum (see claim 1 and 3 of Reuss).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a third body portion (16) of Reuss from iron having different coefficient of elasticity as obvious of design choice. By selecting an iron for third body portion of Reuss would provide good stiffness, and lower thermal conductivity, lower cost. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Claim 9 and 19: Reuss as modified by Cadaret discloses wherein the coefficient of elasticity of the first body portion (see annotated Fig.3 below rejection of claim 1) is greater than the coefficient of elasticity of the third body portion (16), and
the coefficient of elasticity of the third body portion (16) is greater than the coefficient of elasticity of the second body portion (see annotated Fig.3 below rejection of claim 1- as steel has higher coefficient of elasticity than iron from third body portion; and iron has higher coefficient of elasticity than plastic)
Claim 10 and 20: Reuss as modified by Cadaret discloses wherein the first body portion (see annotated Fig.3 below rejection of claim 1), the second body portion (see annotated Fig.3 below rejection of claim 1), and the third body portion (16) are made of different materials.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer (DE102021103509A1 cited from IDS) in view Cadaret (US 5484041 A)
Claim 1: Maurer discloses a brake piston (20) provided in a brake system of a vehicle and pressing a brake pad (16,18) to a disc (12) by braking hydraulic pressure (¶[0043]), the brake piston (20) comprising:
a body portion (body of 20) installed in a cylinder (22) provided in a caliper housing (14), being in a shape of a pillar (20 has elongated structural body), and configured to be movable forward and backward (¶[0049]),
wherein the body portion (body of 20; Fig.3) comprises:
a first body portion (20a) forming an outer part (e.g. region on the outer side of body of 20) of the body portion in a radial direction of the disc (12) when the brake piston (20) is installed in the brake system;
and a second body portion (20b) forming an inner part (e.g. region on the inner side of body of 20) of the body portion in the radial direction of the disc (12) when the brake piston (20) is installed in the brake system.
Maurer does not clearly disclose second body portion having a coefficient of elasticity that is different from a coefficient of elasticity of the first body portion.
Note: Maurer suggests that brake piston parts from different materials, including different alloys of the same base material (see ¶[0030])
Cadaret teaches a piston (18) having a first body portion (22) and second body portion (20); wherein the second body portion having a coefficient of elasticity that is different from a coefficient of elasticity of the first body portion (as 20 is plastic and 22 is stainless steel. It is known that plastic have lower coefficient of elasticity than stainless steel-see col.2 lines 24-28 and claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form first and second body portions of Maurer from different materials having different coefficient of elasticity as taught by Cadaret as matter of obvious design choice. In this case, selecting a stainless steel for first body portion (20a) of Maurer would increase stiffness and dimensional stability in load bearing regions while selecting lower coefficient of elasticity (i.e. plastic) for second body portion (20b) of Maurer would improve deformation and damping. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Claim 11: Maurer discloses a brake system (Fig.1) comprising:
a carrier1 in which a pair of brake pads (16,18) are installed to be movable forward and backward (¶[0049]);
a caliper housing (14) slidably installed in the carrier1,
wherein a cylinder (22) is provided in the caliper housing (14); and
a piston (20; Fig.1-2) installed in the cylinder (22) and configured to be movable forward and backward for pressing one of the brake pads (16/18) to a disc (12) (¶[0049]) , wherein the piston (20) comprises a body portion (body of 20; Fig.2) being in a shape of a pillar (20 has elongated structural body),
and the body portion (body of 20) comprises:
a first body portion (20a) forming an outer part (e.g. region on the outer side of body of 20) of the body portion in a radial direction of the disc (12); and
a second body portion (20b) forming at an inner part (e.g. region on the inner side of body of 20) of the body portion in the radial direction of the disc (12)
Maurer does not clearly disclose second body portion having a coefficient of elasticity that is different from a coefficient of elasticity of the first body portion.
Note: Maurer suggests that brake piston parts from different materials, including different alloys of the same base material (see ¶[0030])
Cadaret teaches a piston (18) having a first body portion (22) and second body portion (20); wherein the second body portion having a coefficient of elasticity that is different from a coefficient of elasticity of the first body portion (as 20 is plastic and 22 is stainless steel. It is known that plastic have lower coefficient of elasticity than stainless steel-see col.2 lines 24-28 and claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form first and second body portions of Maurer from different materials having different coefficient of elasticity as taught by Cadaret as matter of obvious design choice. In this case, selecting a stainless steel for first body portion (20a) of Maurer would increase stiffness and dimensional stability in load bearing regions while selecting lower coefficient of elasticity (i.e. plastic) for second body portion (20b) of Maurer would improve deformation and damping. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Claim 2 and 12: Maurer as modified by Cadaret discloses wherein the first body portion (20a) is bonded (via 61) with the second body portion (20b) to form the body portion.
Claim 3 and 13: Maurer as modified by Cadaret discloses the brake piston of claim 1, wherein the first body portion (20a) and the second body portion (20b) are made of different materials (as taught by Cadaret).
Claim 4 and 14: Maurer as modified by Cadaret discloses the brake piston of claim 1, wherein a cross sectional area of the first body portion in an axial direction is different from a cross sectional area of the second body portion in the axial direction (as shown in Fig.2: 20b has different cross sectional area than 20a in axial direction).
Claim 5 and 15: Maurer as modified by Cadaret discloses the brake piston of claim 1, wherein the coefficient of elasticity of the first body portion (20a) is greater than the coefficient of elasticity of the second body portion (20b) (i.e. plastic have lower coefficient of elasticity than stainless steel-see claim 1, as taught by Cadaret).
Claim 6 and 16: Maurer as modified by Cadaret discloses the brake piston of claim 1, wherein the body portion (body of 20) further includes a third body portion (61) positioned between the first body portion (20a) and the second body portion (20b).
Response to Arguments/Amendment
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to claim 11.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
1-Applicant argues “On page 4 of the Office Action, the Examiner asserts that Reuss, in FIG. 3, discloses that the body portion comprises a first body portion provided at an outer side of the body portion in a radial direction of the disc and a second body portion provided at an inner side of the body portion in the radial direction of the disc. In particular, the Examiner appears to take the position that a piston cylindrical wall 12 and a core member 16 of Reuss allegedly correspond to the claimed first body portion and second body portion, respectively. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Even assuming arguendo that there is any correspondence between features of claim 1 and Reuss, Reuss fails to disclose the claimed structural orientation. In particular, it is noted that claim 1 recites, inter alia, wherein the body portion comprises a first body portion forming an outer part of the body portion in a radial direction of the disc when the brake piston is installed in the brake system and a second body portion forming an inner part of the body portion in the radial direction of the disc when the brake piston is installed in the brake system and having a coefficient of elasticity that is different from a coefficient of elasticity of the first body portion. In contrast, Reuss' piston cylindrical wall 12 does not form an outer part of the body portion in a radial direction of the disc, nor does its core member 16 form an inner part of the body portion in the radial direction of the disc. Instead, Reuss merely discloses a concentric, coaxial division structure based on the piston's center axis (see paragraphs [0028] and [0040] of Reuss). However, nowhere does Reuss disclose or suggest aligning these structural divisions relative to the radial direction of the disc when the piston is installed in the brake system. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Reuss fails to disclose or suggest "wherein the body portion comprises a first body portion forming an outer part of the body portion in a radial direction of the disc when the brake piston is installed in the brake system and a second body portion forming an inner part of the body portion in the radial direction of the disc when the brake piston is installed in the brake system and having a coefficient of elasticity that is different from a coefficient of elasticity of the first body portion," as recited in claim 1.”
--In response to the applicant’s argument above, examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiner does not rely upon cylindrical wall 12 and core member 16 as respectively corresponding to the claimed first and second body portions. As indicated in the annotated Fig.3 above, the examiner took position that “first body portion” is region on the outer side of body of piston body and “second body portion” is region on the inner side of piston body . Claim 1 does not require the first and second body portions to be separately manufactured components, physically separable pieces. Furthermore, the term “portion”/ “part” does not have specific definition in the specification. Under BRI, the term “portion”/ “part” is interpreted as segment or region or piece of the piston body (see claim interpretation section).
Moreover, applicant pointed out that Reuss’s wall 12 and core 16 are concentric about the piston axis, this does not distinguish the claimed subject matter the first and second body portion not 12 and 16 but they are identified as the region of piston situated toward the radially outer side of disc and opposed region situated toward radially inner side of the disc correspond to the claimed first and second body portion, respectively when piston 10 is installed in the disclosed disc brake system.
2-Applicant argues “In addition, Cadaret does not teach or suggest the elements of claim 1 that are missing from Reuss. On pages 4-5 of the Office Action, the Examiner acknowledges that Reuss does not disclose second body portion having a coefficient of elasticity that is different from a coefficient of elasticity of the first body portion. To address this, the Examiner relies on Cadaret (col. 2, lines 24-28), which teaches a piston (18) having a cup 22 made of stainless steel and a cushion material comprising plastic 20 made of plastic. The Examiner asserts that selecting these materials would be an obvious design choice. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Contrary to the Examiner's assertion, and like Reuss, Cadaret features an inner/outer concentric arrangement based on the piston center axis, not the radial direction of the disc. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Cadaret fails to disclose or suggest "wherein the body portion comprises a first body portion forming an outer part of the body portion in a radial direction of the disc when the brake piston is installed in the brake system and a second body portion forming an inner part of the body portion in the radial direction of the disc when the brake piston is installed in the brake system and having a coefficient of elasticity that is different from a coefficient of elasticity of the first body portion," as recited in claim 1. Further, prior art lacks the technical purpose and asymmetric structure of the present application. Reuss and Cadaret are intended for structural reinforcement and axial damping, respectively. Because they utilize symmetric, concentric designs, they are physically incapable of addressing the asymmetric forces acting on a brake piston.
--In response to the applicant’s argument above, examiner respectfully disagrees because Cadaret is not relied upon for location of the first and second body portions. Cadaret is relied on the teaching of utilizing different elastic properties within the brake piston. The rejection is based upon the combined teaching of Reuss and Cadaret and does not require Cadaret independently to disclose the location of first of second body portions already disclosed by Reuss.
3- Applicant argues “ In contrast, the present application incorporates an asymmetric, upper/lower split structure divided into a first body portion 15 (upper part) and a second body portion 16 (lower part) defined specifically along the radial direction of the disc. By utilizing different elastic moduli for these upper and lower radial halves, the brake piston of the present application can counter the uneven twisting or "piston tilting" caused by disc rotation and caliper deformation during braking. Because Reuss and Cadaret rely entirely on concentric, rotationally symmetric divisions, neither reference teaches, suggests, or is physically capable of achieving this technical result.”
--In response to the applicant’s argument above, examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim does not require the difference in coefficient of elasticity counteract piston tilting, or specify ratio between the respective coefficients, and does not recite a particular deformation response to result from the difference in coefficient. Thereof, applicant’s anti-tilting advantage does not distinguish the claimed structure from the proposed combination.
4- Applicant argues “On page 10 of the Office Action, the Examiner asserts that Maurer discloses a first body portion (10a) at an outer side in a radial direction of the disc (12) and a second body portion (20b) at an inner side in the radial direction of the disc (20). Applicant respectfully disagrees. Like the other references, Maurer merely discloses an inner/outer concentric arrangement consisting of a first tube section 38 and a second tube section 40 centered around the piston's longitudinal axis (see FIG. 2 of Maurer). For the convenience of the Examiner, FIG. 2 of Maurer is reproduced below. Maurer does not disclose or suggest an asymmetric division oriented along the radial direction of the brake disc. Because Maurer suffers from the same structural deficiencies as Reuss, the combination of Maurer and Cadaret fails to disclose or suggest a first and second body portion arranged in the radial direction of the disc with differing coefficients of elasticity, as required by claim 1. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Maurer and Cadaret fail to disclose or suggest "wherein the body portion comprises a first body portion forming an outer part of the body portion in a radial direction of the disc when the brake piston is installed in the brake system and a second body portion forming an inner part of the body portion in the radial direction of the disc when the brake piston is installed in the brake system and having a coefficient of elasticity that is different from a coefficient of elasticity of the first body portion," as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patentable over the cited references because the cited references do not teach or suggest all of the features of the claim. Independent claim 11 recites features similar to the above-discussed features of claim 1. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully submit that claim 11 is patentable for at least reasons similar to those provided above with regard to claim 1. Regarding the rejection of claims 2-10 and 12-20, Applicant respectfully submits that these claims are patentable for at least the reasons set forth above due to their respective dependencies and the additional features recited therein.”
--In response to the applicant’s argument above, examiner respectfully disagrees because the rejection does not rely upon first tube section 38 and second tube section 40 as corresponding to the claimed first and second body portions. The rejection identifies a first region is 20a of piston body 20 located toward the radially outer part of brake disc 12 and 20b is second region of brake piston located toward the radially inner side of brake disc 12 when piston 20 is installed in the brake system. Claim 1 does not require the first and second body portions to be separately manufactured components, physically separable pieces. Furthermore, the term “portion”/ “part” does not have specific definition in the specification. Under BRI, the term “portion”/ “part” is interpreted as segment or region or piece of the piston body (see claim interpretation section). Furthermore, applicant pointed out Maurer merely discloses an inner/outer concentric arrangement consisting of a first tube section 38 and a second tube section 40 centered around the piston's longitudinal axis. This does not negate 20a is first body portion of the piston body located toward the radially outer part of brake disc 12 and 20b is second body portion of the piston body located toward the radially inner side of brake disc 12 when piston 20 is installed in the brake system. Cadaret is relied on the teaching of utilizing different elastic properties within the brake piston. The rejection is based upon the combined teaching of Maurer and Cadaret and does not require Cadaret independently to disclose the location of first of second body portions already disclosed by Reuss. Thereof, claim 1 is rejected. Claims 2-10 are also rejected because claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and applicant has not presented separate arguments for the dependent claims.
Regarding claim 11, since claim 11 recited similar limitation to the above-discussed features of claim 1. Thereof, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons above. Claims 11-20 are also rejected because claims 11-20 depend from claim 11 and applicant has not presented separate arguments for the dependent claims.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Suga (US 20010025569 A1) discloses inner surface 24 of the metallic cylinder 21 and an outer surface 33 of the hollow resin cylinder 31.
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 inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lillian T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5404. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571)270-5565. 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.
/LILLIAN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3655a
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
1 While carrier does not shown, it is well known in this art that carrier is a standard component in brake systems used to support pad plates. For instance, Hong (US 20140020989) discloses a carrier (not shown) fixed to a vehicle body and coupled with the caliper housing 120 to allow the caliper housing 120 to be slidable, a pair of pad plates 111 and 112 installed at the carrier to be spaced (see ¶[0036])
Prosecution Insights