DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Claims 3-7, 9 and 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/18/2026. Claim 3 requires a connecting portion to “face or contact a lower surface of the protruded portion of the brake pad”, a feature of Species 2, but not the elected embodiment. Claim 4 requires a first bent portion (1351), a feature found in Figures 9-10, but not in the elected embodiment. Claim 9 is directed towards the bent second arm (1230) of Species 2. Claims 16 and 18, the applicant claims first curved portions (1441, 1542, 1642) that are not found in the elected embodiment. Claims 5-7, 17, 19 are dependent upon withdrawn claims. Claim 3 requires a connecting portion to “face or contact a lower surface of the protruded portion of the brake pad”, a feature of Species 2, but not the elected embodiment. Claim 4 requires a first bent portion (1351), a feature found in Figures 9-10, but not in the elected embodiment. Claim 9 is directed towards the bent second arm (1230) of Species 2. Claims 16 and 18, the applicant claims first curved portions (1441, 1542, 1642) that are not found in the elected embodiment. Claims 5-7, 17, 19 are dependent upon withdrawn claims.
3. Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on 6/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the Restriction Requirement fails to provide any adequate reasons and/or examples required under MPEP §803 regarding the requirement” (Page 3). This is not found persuasive because the Examiner explained the differences between each of the embodiments in the restriction requirement mailed 5/7/2026. Regarding Species 1, the Examiner explained that “the carrier support part (1150) has two legs (1151, 1152) bent in opposite directions” (Page 2). The Examiner further explained that “the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries)” (Page 3). Examiners need not cite documents to support the restriction requirement in most cases, of which this is one (See MPEP 803(II)).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 10 and 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.
Claim 10 recites “a closest distance between the first arm and the second arm of the pad coupling part is smaller than a thickness of the protruded portion of the brake pad”. It is unclear if this is only meant to describe a section of the protruding portion (125) or the entirety of the protruding portion (125). The former interpretation is supported by the disclosure, but the latter is not.
Claim 13 recites “a first leg extending from the body part and having a shape of being at least partially cut and bent in one direction”. It is unclear what the limitation “a shape of being at least partially cut” requires.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 10, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al (JP 2012-063014).
As per claim 1, Hayashi et al discloses a retraction spring (11) comprising:
a pad coupling part (12) to be coupled to a protruded portion (8A) of a brake pad (7), the pad coupling part including a first arm (Fig. 5) and a second arm (Fig. 5) supporting a front surface (8, Fig. 4) and a rear surface (8, Fig. 4) of the protruded portion of the brake pad, respectively, and a connecting portion (Fig. 5) connecting between the first arm and the second arm;
a body part (13, 14, 15, 16, 17) extending from the pad coupling part and configured to provide an elastic restoring force ([0037]); and
a carrier support part (17A) extending from the body part and supported by a coupling hook (3) formed on a carrier (3) to which the brake pad is movably mounted,
wherein:
the first arm of the pad coupling part is bent from one side of the connecting portion toward the front surface of the protruded portion of the brake pad (Fig. 5),
the second arm of the pad coupling part is bent from an other side of the connecting portion toward the rear surface of the protruded portion of the brake pad (Fig. 5), and
the body part is bent from the other side of the connecting portion connecting between the first arm and the second arm of the coupling part (Bent portion 13 extends from the connecting portion by way of the second arm).
PNG
media_image1.png
595
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 2, Hayashi et al discloses the retraction spring of claim 1, wherein the connecting portion connecting between the first arm and the second arm of the pad coupling part is positioned to face or contact a side surface (Fig. 4) of the protruded portion of the brake pad.
As per claim 8, Hayashi et al discloses the retraction spring of claim 1, wherein the first arm of the pad coupling part includes a first inclined portion (Fig. 5) bent from the one side of the connecting portion and inclined toward the second arm of the pad coupling part and a second inclined portion (Fig. 5) bent from the first inclined portion and inclined away from the second arm of the pad coupling part.
As per claim 10, Hayashi et al discloses the retraction spring of claim 1, wherein a closest distance between the first arm and the second arm of the pad coupling part is smaller than a thickness of the protruded portion of the brake pad (Fig. 4).
As per claim 14, Hayashi et al discloses the retraction spring of claim 1, wherein the carrier support part includes at least one bent portion (17B) extending and bent from the body part extending from the pad coupling part.
As per claim 15, Hayashi et al discloses a caliper brake (Abstract; Fig. 2) comprising:
a pair of brake pads (7) configured to be movable with respect to a rotor (D) and having protruded portions (8A) protruding from sides of the brake pads;
a carrier (3) including slide grooves (3A) in which the protruded portions of the brake pads are movably disposed (Abstract) and coupling hooks (3) formed around the slide grooves; and
a retraction spring (11) coupled to one of the protruded portions of the brake pads and configured to return one of the brake pads during an operation of brake release (Abstract),
wherein the retraction spring includes:
a pad coupling part (12) coupled to the one of the protruded portions of the brake pads, the pad coupling part including a first arm (Fig. 5) and a second arm (Fig. 5) supporting a front surface (8, Fig. 4) and a rear surface (8, Fig. 4) of the one of the protruded portions of the brake pads, respectively, and a connecting portion (Fig. 5) connecting between the first arm and the second arm and disposed to face a side or lower surface (Fig. 4) of the one of the protruded portions of the brake pads;
a body part (13, 14, 15, 16, 17) extending from the pad coupling part and configured to provide an elastic restoring force ([0037]); and
a carrier support part (17A) extending from the body part and supported by one of the coupling hooks,
the first arm of the pad coupling part is bent from one side of the connecting portion toward the front surface of the one of the protruded portions of the brake pads (Fig. 5),
at least a portion of the second arm of the pad coupling part is bent from an other side of the connecting portion toward the rear surface of the one of the protruded portions of the brake pads (Fig. 5), and
the body part is bent from the other side of the connecting portion connecting between the first arm and the second arm of the coupling part (13).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al (JP 2012-063014).
As per claim 12, Hayashi et al discloses the retraction spring of claim 1, wherein the carrier support part includes: a first leg (17A) extending from the body part and bent in one direction, but does not disclose a second leg extending from the body part and bent in another direction different from the one direction in which the first leg is bent in the same embodiment.
Hayashi et al discloses a different embodiment (Fig. 12-13) wherein the carrier support part includes:
a first leg (57A) extending from the body part and bent in one direction (Center abutting portion 57A is bent relative to the first extending portion 54); and
a second leg (57B) extending from the body part and bent in another direction different from the one direction in which the first leg is bent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tip engaging part (17) of Hayashi et al by forming it as a bent fork in order to improve stability ([0070], [0071]).
As per claim 13, Hayashi et al discloses the retraction spring of claim 1, wherein the carrier support part includes: a first leg (17A) extending from the body part and having a shape of being at least partially cut and bent in one direction, but does not disclose a second leg extending from the body part and bent in another direction different from the one direction in which the first leg is bent in the same embodiment.
Hayashi et al discloses a different embodiment (Fig. 12-13) wherein the carrier support part includes:
a first leg (57A) extending from the body part and having a shape of being at least partially cut and bent in one direction (Center abutting portion 57A is bent relative to the first extending portion 54); and
a second leg (57B) extending from the body part and bent in another direction different from the one direction in which the first leg is bent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tip engaging part (17) of Hayashi et al by forming it as a bent fork in order to improve stability ([0070], [0071]).
11. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al (JP 2012-063014) in view of Lee (US 2023/0011350).
As per claim 11, Hayashi et al discloses the retraction spring of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the body part extending from the pad coupling part has at least one opening.
Lee discloses a brake apparatus wherein the body part extending from the pad coupling part has at least one opening (323). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the return spring of Hayashi et al by adding holes as taught by Lee in order to make the spring easier to elastically deform (Lee: [0042]).
12. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al (JP 2012-063014) in view of Ki Bae Song (KR 2021-0020250).
As per claim 20, Hayashi et al discloses the caliper brake of claim 15, but does not disclose wherein the carrier is configured such that a distance from the rotor to the coupling hooks in which the protruded portions of one of the pair of brake pads are disposed is different from a distance from the rotor to the coupling hooks in which the protruded portions of another of the pair of brake pads are disposed.
Ki Bae Song discloses a caliper brake wherein the carrier is configured such that a distance from the rotor to the coupling hooks in which the protruded portions of one of the pair of brake pads are disposed is different from a distance from the rotor to the coupling hooks in which the protruded portions of another of the pair of brake pads are disposed (d3, d4, Fig. 5; [0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake caliper of Hayashi et al by mounting it asymmetrically about the rotor as taught by Ki Bae Song in order to provide improved pedal feel and drag performance (Ki Bae Song: [0067])
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US equivalent of Kongo Konde et al (WO 2020/260098), cited in IDS filed 2/26/2025
Kongo Konde et al (US 2022/0252120).
Brake pad springs
Miyake et al (US 2014/0367208).
Kamiya et al (US 2014/0345984).
Katagiri et al (US 4,498,559).
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M BOWES whose telephone number is (571)270-0460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
STEPHEN M. BOWES IV
Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/STEPHEN M BOWES/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights