DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 is the first Office Action on the merits for application no. 18/654,862 filed on May 3rd, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s claim to priority of application KR 10-2023-0091021 filed on July 13th, 2023. A certified copy was received on May 27th, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 3rd, 2024; March 4th, 2025; June 18th, 2025 and December 8th, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 14 (line 4), please change the recitation of “protruding outward from the outer circumferential surface of the guide rod” to - - protruding outward from [[the]] an outer circumferential surface of the guide rod - - to establish antecedent basis.
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 2-3, 7-8 and 18-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2 (last clause), in the recitation of “wherein the protruding part of the carrier is formed to extend and protrude from each of the guide beams toward the vehicle body” it is unclear how many protruding parts Applicant intends to recite. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the protruding part of the carrier is formed as respective protruding parts to extend and protrude from each of the guide beams toward the vehicle body” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 3, in the recitation of “wherein at least a part of an area of an inner wall of the guide hole with which an outer circumferential surface of the guide rod is contactable by slide movement of the guide rod is positioned further inside the vehicle body than an end portion of the main beam” it is generally unclear what Applicant intended to recite as an end portion (Fig. 4, 150) of the main beam (130) extends closer to the vehicle body than the portion of the guide hole (110) in contact with the guide rod (400). It is also unclear how portions of the caliper brake are “inside” the vehicle body defined in claim 1. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 7 (lines 7-8), in the recitation of “a coupling groove formed on an inner surface of the boot coupling part of the guide hole of the carrier” the difference between the “inner surface of the guide hole of the carrier” recited in claim 4 and the “inner surface of the boot coupling part of the guide hole of the carrier” recited in claim 7 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a coupling groove formed on [[an]] the inner surface of the boot coupling part of the guide hole of the carrier” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 18, in the recitation of “at least a part of an area of an inner wall of the guide hole with which the outer circumferential surface of the guide rod is contactable by slide movement of the guide rod is positioned further inside the vehicle body than an end portion of the main beam” it is generally unclear what Applicant intended to recite as an end portion (Fig. 4, 150) of the main beam (130) extends closer to the vehicle body than the portion of the guide hole (110) in contact with the guide rod (400). It is also unclear how portions of the caliper brake are “inside” the vehicle body defined in claim 17. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 19, in the recitation of “wherein at least a part of the boot is inserted in a boot coupling part recessed from an inner circumferential surface of the guide hole” the difference between the “inner circumferential surface of the guide hole of the carrier” recited in claim 16 (lines 19-20) and the “inner circumferential surface of the guide hole” recited in claim 19 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein at least a part of the boot is inserted in a boot coupling part recessed from [[an]] a second inner circumferential surface of the guide hole” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 20 (lines 10-11), in the recitation of “a coupling groove formed on an inner surface of the boot coupling part of the guide hole of the carrier” the difference between the “inner circumferential surface of the guide hole of the carrier” recited in claim 16 (lines 19-20) and the “inner surface of the boot coupling part of the guide hole of the carrier” recited in claim 20 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a coupling groove formed on [[an]] the inner circumferential surface of the boot coupling part of the guide hole of the carrier” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Claims 3, 8 and 20 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagashima (US 10,495,160), in view of Leidecker (US 2025/0043837).
Regarding Claim 1, Nagashima teaches a caliper brake (Figs. 1 and 4-5; “disc brake” 1) comprising:
a carrier (“carrier” 3) including a guide hole (“pin hole” 14);
a guide rod (“slide pin” 15) slidably inserted in the guide hole (14) of the carrier (3); and
a caliper housing (“caliper” 6) fixed to the guide rod (15) to be movable together with the guide rod (15) with respect to the carrier (3),
wherein an end portion of the guide rod (15) is fixedly coupled to the caliper housing (6; col. 7, line 1 – “slide pins 15, 15 are fastened to the pair of caliper arms 62, 62 by means of fastening nuts 65, 65. The slide pins 15, 15 are inserted in the pin holes 14 of the pin inserting portions 10 of the carrier 3 to be slidable in the axial direction”), and the guide hole (14) is formed in a protruding part (“pin hole bosses” 16) of the carrier (3) protruding toward a vehicle body (“INNER SIDE” seen in Fig. 1).
Nagashima does not teach “wherein an end portion of the guide rod is fixedly coupled to a coupling hole formed at the caliper housing”. In other words, Nagashima does not explicitly disclose a coupling hole.
Leidecker teaches an end portion of a guide rod (Figs. 1-2; right end of “movable bolt” 8) is fixedly coupled to a coupling hole (coupling hole portion of “brake caliper housing” 5) formed at a caliper housing (5; see Figs. 1-2).
Leidecker also teaches “The problem of presenting a further developed motor vehicle disk brake of the generic pin-slider type mentioned at the beginning (sliding caliper or floating caliper brake) with a restoring effect that is free from maintenance and is improved for an indirectly actuated friction lining with universal usability, i.e. independently of connection of an actuator” [0007] and “According to a development, the sleeve permits spring-like restoring assistance or impressing of a restoring effect for the purpose of generating a release movement for the release of a brake with a high-load-bearing and damping behavior, by the sleeve being manufactured from an elastomer with independent shape memory in order to generate a restoring function” [0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the guide pin arrangement taught by Nagashima with the guide pin arrangement taught by Leidecker, such that “wherein an end portion of the guide rod is fixedly coupled to a coupling hole formed at the caliper housing”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known elements, and have the obvious advantage of providing the caliper brake taught by Nagashima with a maintenance free guide pin arrangement.
Regarding Claim 2, Nagashima and Leidecker teach the caliper brake of claim 1,
Nagashima teaches wherein the carrier (Figs. 4-5; 3) further includes:
a main beam (“inner beam” 32) having a knuckle hole (“through-holes” 33) to be coupled to the vehicle body (col. 4, line 36 – “As shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, through-holes 33, 33 are formed in respective ends of the inner beam 32 in order to attach the carrier 3 to the non-rotating portion of the vehicle”); and
a pair of guide beams (“inner arm” 19 and “inner arm” 18) provided on both sides of the main beam (32),
wherein the protruding part (16) of the carrier (3) is formed to extend and protrude from each of the guide beams (19, 18) toward the vehicle body (see Figs. 1 and 4-5; see col. 4, line 36 passage above; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 3, Nagashima and Leidecker teach the caliper brake of claim 2,
Leidecker teaches, in combination with Nagashima, wherein at least a part of an area of an inner wall of the guide hole (Figs. 1-2, 9) with which an outer circumferential surface of the guide rod (8) is contactable by slide movement of the guide rod (8) is positioned further inside the vehicle body (taught by Nagashima) than an end portion of the main beam (taught by Nagashima; see Figs. 1 and 4-5 of Nagashima and Figs. 1-2 of Leidecker; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 4, Nagashima and Leidecker teach the caliper brake of claim 1,
Leidecker teaches further comprising a boot (Figs. 1-2; “sleeve” 10) provided between an outer circumferential surface of the guide rod (8) fixed to the caliper housing (5; taught in combination with Nagashima) and an inner surface of the guide hole (9) of the carrier (4; taught in combination with Nagashima; see Figs. 1-2 of Leidecker and Figs. 1 and 4-5 of Nagashima).
Regarding Claim 5, Nagashima and Leidecker teach the caliper brake of claim 4,
Leidecker teaches wherein the guide hole (Figs. 1-2; 9) of the carrier (4; taught in combination with Nagashima) has a boot coupling part (portion of 9 for receiving 10) to which the boot (10) is coupled (see Figs. 1-2 of Leidecker).
Regarding Claim 6, Nagashima and Leidecker teach the caliper brake of claim 5,
Leidecker teaches wherein: the boot (Figs. 1-2; 10) covers at least a part of the outer circumferential surface of the guide rod (8); and
the boot coupling part (portion of 9 for receiving 10) is formed to be recessed from an inner circumferential surface of the guide hole (9) of the carrier (4; taught in combination with Nagashima; see Figs. 1-2 of Leidecker and Figs. 1 and 4-5 of Nagashima).
Regarding Claim 7, Nagashima and Leidecker teach the caliper brake of claim 6,
Leidecker teaches wherein the boot (Figs. 1-2; 10) includes an outer protrusion (“holding projection” 14) protruding from an outer circumferential surface of the boot (10),
wherein at least a part of the outer protrusion (14) of the boot (10) is inserted in a coupling groove (“cavity” 13) formed on an inner surface of the boot coupling part (portion of 9 for receiving 10) of the guide hole (9) of the carrier (4; taught in combination with Nagashima; see Figs. 1-2 of Leidecker and Figs. 1 and 4-5 of Nagashima).
Regarding Claim 8, Nagashima and Leidecker teach the caliper brake of claim 7,
Leidecker teaches wherein the boot (Figs. 1-2; 10) further includes a flange part (“seat” 16) protruding outward from an end portion (right end) of the boot (10) to seal an opening of the boot coupling part (portion of 9 for receiving 10) of the guide hole (9) of the carrier (4; taught in combination with Nagashima; see Figs. 1-2 of Leidecker and Figs. 1 and 4-5 of Nagashima).
Regarding Claim 9, Nagashima and Leidecker teach the caliper brake of claim 6,
Leidecker teaches wherein an inner diameter of at least a part of an inner circumferential surface of the boot (Figs. 1-2; 10) is smaller than or equal to an outer diameter of the guide rod (9; see Fig. 2a of Leidecker).
Regarding Claim 10, Nagashima and Leidecker teach the caliper brake of claim 6,
Leidecker teaches wherein the boot (Figs. 3-4; 10) includes at least one inner protrusion (“ribs” 20) protruding inward from an inner circumferential surface of the boot (10).
Regarding Claim 11, Nagashima and Leidecker teach the caliper brake of claim 1,
Leidecker wherein the guide hole (Figs. 1-2; 9) is formed to pass through the carrier (4) in an axial direction of the caliper brake (taught in combination with Nagashima; see Figs. 1-2 of Leidecker and Figs. 1 and 4-5 of Nagashima).
Claims 12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagashima (US 10,495,160), in view of Leidecker (US 2025/0043837), and in view of KR 1998-055303. See translation provided to Applicant with this Office Action.
Regarding Claim 12, Nagashima and Leidecker teach the caliper brake of claim 11.
Nagashima or Leidecker do not teach “further comprising a stopper member covering an opening of the guide hole which is formed opposite to another opening of the guide hole in which the guide rod is inserted”. In other words, Nagashima and Leidecker teach a blind guide hole instead of a through guide hole.
KR 1998-055303 teaches a stopper member (Fig. 3, “end closure bolt” 33) covering an opening (left opening) of a guide hole (“sliding pin hole” 30) which is formed opposite to another opening (right opening) of the guide hole (30) in which a guide rod (“sliding pin” 20) is inserted.
KR 1998-055303 also teaches “By constructing as described above, the drilling of the sliding pin hole 30 becomes easier and the straightness of the sliding pin hole 30 can be improved, and the processing chip or plating residue remaining in the inner side is injected to one side by the injection of high pressure air or the like. By easily discharged, the above-described problems can be eliminated”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the blind guide hole arrangement taught by Nagashima and Leidecker with the through guide hole arrangement taught by KR 1998-055303, such that “further comprising a stopper member covering an opening of the guide hole which is formed opposite to another opening of the guide hole in which the guide rod is inserted”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known elements, and have the obvious advantage of providing the caliper brake taught by Nagashima with a carrier guide hole that is easier to manufacture.
Regarding Claim 16, Nagashima teaches a caliper brake (see Figs. 1 and 4-5) comprising:
a carrier (3) including a guide hole (14) passing through at least a part of the carrier (3) in an axial direction of the caliper brake (see Figs. 1 and 4-5);
a guide rod (15) slidably inserted in the guide hole (14) of the carrier (3);
a caliper housing (6) fixed to the guide rod (15) to be movable together with the guide rod (15) with respect to the carrier (3); and
a boot (“boots” 66).
Nagashima does not teach “a boot coupled to one opening of the guide hole of the carrier and disposed between an outer circumferential surface of the guide rod and an inner circumferential surface of the guide hole of the carrier; and a stopper member covering an other opening of the guide hole of the carrier”.
Leidecker teaches a boot (Figs. 1-2; 10) coupled to one opening of a guide hole (9) of the carrier (4) and disposed between an outer circumferential surface of a guide rod (8) and an inner circumferential surface of the guide hole (9) of the carrier (4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the guide pin arrangement taught by Nagashima with the guide pin arrangement taught by Leidecker, such that “a boot coupled to one opening of the guide hole of the carrier and disposed between an outer circumferential surface of the guide rod and an inner circumferential surface of the guide hole of the carrier”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known elements, and have the obvious advantage of providing the caliper brake taught by Nagashima with a maintenance free guide pin arrangement.
Nagashima or Leidecker do not teach “a stopper member covering an other opening of the guide hole of the carrier”. In other words, Nagashima and Leidecker teach a blind guide hole instead of a through guide hole.
KR 1998-055303 teaches a stopper member (Fig. 3, 33) covering an other opening (left opening) of a guide hole (30) of a carrier (10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the blind guide hole arrangement taught by Nagashima and Leidecker with the through guide hole arrangement taught by KR 1998-055303, such that “a stopper member covering an other opening of the guide hole of the carrier”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known elements, and have the obvious advantage of providing the caliper brake taught by Nagashima with a carrier guide hole that is easier to manufacture.
Regarding Claim 17, Nagashima, Leidecker and KR 1998-055303 teach the caliper brake of claim 16,
Leidecker teaches wherein: an end portion of the guide rod (Figs. 1-2; 8) is fixedly coupled to a coupling hole (coupling hole portion of 5) of the caliper housing (5);
Nagashima teaches the guide hole (Figs. 1 and 4-5; 14) is formed in a protruding part (16) of the carrier (3) protruding toward an inside (“INNER SIDE” seen in Fig. 1) of a vehicle body (see Figs. 1 and 4-5 of Nagashima and Figs. 1-2 of Leidecker).
Regarding Claim 18, Nagashima, Leidecker and KR 1998-055303 teach the caliper brake of claim 17,
Nagashima teaches wherein: the carrier (Figs. 4-5; 3) includes a main beam (32) coupled (via 33) to the vehicle body (see Figs. 1 and 4-5); and
Leidecker teaches at least a part of an area of an inner wall of the guide hole (Figs. 1-2; 9) with which the outer circumferential surface of the guide rod (8) is contactable by slide movement of the guide rod (8) is positioned further inside the vehicle body than an end portion of the main beam (taught in combination with Nagashima; see Figs. 1 and 4-5 of Nagashima and Figs. 1-2 of Leidecker; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 19, Nagashima, Leidecker and KR 1998-055303 teach the caliper brake of claim 17,
Leidecker teaches wherein at least a part of the boot (Figs. 1-2; 10) is inserted in a boot coupling part (portion of 9 for receiving 10) recessed from an inner circumferential surface of the guide hole (9; see Figs. 1 and 4-5 of Nagashima and Figs. 1-2 of Leidecker).
Regarding Claim 20, Nagashima, Leidecker and KR 1998-055303 teach the caliper brake of claim 19,
Leidecker teaches wherein the boot (Figs. 1-2; 10) includes an outer protrusion (14) protruding from an outer circumferential surface of the boot (10),
wherein at least a part of the outer protrusion (14) of the boot (10) is inserted in a coupling groove (13) formed on an inner surface of the boot coupling part (portion of 9 for receiving 10) of the guide hole (9) of the carrier (9; see Figs. 1 and 4-5 of Nagashima and Figs. 1-2 of Leidecker).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagashima (US 10,495,160), in view of Leidecker (US 2025/0043837), and in view of Bosis (US 2023/0072036). Bosis was cited on the IDS filed December 8th, 2025.
Regarding Claim 13, Nagashima and Leidecker teach the caliper brake of claim 11.
Nagashima or Leidecker do not teach “wherein: the guide rod includes a screw part inserted in the coupling hole of the caliper housing; and the screw part of the guide rod and the coupling hole of the caliper housing are screw-coupled to each other”. In other words, Nagashima and Leidecker teaches teach two-piece guide pin instead of a single piece guide pin.
Bosis teaches a guide rod (Figs. 14-17, “guide pin” 2) includes a screw part (threaded portion of 2) inserted in a coupling hole (“fixing housing” 105) of a caliper housing (“caliper” 100); and
the screw part (threaded portion of 2) of the guide rod (2) and the coupling hole (105) of the caliper housing (100) are screw-coupled to each other (see Figs. 14 and 17).
Bosis also teaches “The need is therefore felt in the sector to realize solutions of floating-type brake caliper guides which involve a reduced number of processing steps, by decreasing production costs and the selling price, and that they are simple to make, while ensuring a tight connection of guide sleeve to the guide pin that is safe and long-lasting, as well as making it possible to simplify and reduce the times of the assembly and maintenance steps for the floating-type brake calipers” [0015].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the two-piece guide pin taught by Nagashima and Leidecker with the threaded single piece guide pin taught by Bosis, such that “wherein: the guide rod includes a screw part inserted in the coupling hole of the caliper housing; and the screw part of the guide rod and the coupling hole of the caliper housing are screw-coupled to each other”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known elements, and have the obvious advantage of reliably fixing the brake caliper taught by Nagashima and Leidecker with decreased production costs.
Regarding Claim 14, Nagashima, Leidecker and Bosis teach the caliper brake of claim 13,
Bosis teaches wherein the guide rod (Figs. 1-2 and 14-17; 2) includes a stopper (“pin head” 9) protruding outward from the outer circumferential surface of the guide rod (2) such that the stopper (9) of the guide rod (2) is disposed to contact an outer surface of the caliper housing (100; see Figs. 14 and 17 of Bosis).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Rath (US 4,491,205) and Williams (US 4,511,020) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" disclose similar brake calipers comprising guide pins related to various aspects of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights