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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryu (KR 2005/0056745 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Ryu discloses A disc brake (see fig. 4) comprising: a friction pad (10/11); and a return spring (see figs. 5-7, 50) including:
a fixing part (59) fixed to a friction pad (portion 59 is “fixed” to the friction pad via 55 at least, in that it cannot move relative to the friction pad);
a first extension part (61, i.e. lower loop below 60) formed in a plate shape and extending from the fixing part in a direction away from the friction pad (at least in sections);
a second extension part formed in a plate shape and extending from the first extension part in a direction of pressing the friction pad (see annotated figure, extending from 60 which extends from 61, so therefore it extends from the first extension part indirectly at least);
a contact part formed in a plate shape and extending from the second extension part to come into contact with a carrier attached to a non-rotating portion of a vehicle (see annotated figure);
edge portions which are surfaces each extending in a plate thickness direction of the first extension part, the second extension part, and the contact part (all thin edges of 59/60/61/53); and
a cover part (51) covering at least a part of the edge portions (as shown),
wherein the cover part is provided to extend from at least one of the first extension part, the second extension part, and the contact part (51 “extends from” 59 which “extends from” 60/61, so 51 “extends from” 60/61 indirectly at least),
wherein, in each of the fixing part, the first extension part, the second extension part, and the contact part, a line in the plate thickness direction passes through one plane (the “one plane” would be parallel to the page in fig. 5 and extending out of the page in fig. 6 through the middle of elements 59/60/61/53. Each line drawn in the plate thickness direction of each of these elements would lie in this plane).
PNG
media_image1.png
518
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ryu discloses (figs. 5-7) a connection part (60) connecting the first extension part and the second extension part in a direction different from that of the first extension part and the second extension part is provided (as shown, curving to the side).
Regarding claim 3, Ryu discloses (figs. 5-7) at least one of a first curved part provided in the first extension part to be connected to the connection part, and a second curved part provided in the second extension part to be connected to the connection part is provided (curved area of 61 is provided within 61 and connected to the connection part 60).
Regarding claim 5, Ryu discloses (figs. 5-7) the cover part is provided to extend from the connection part (51 extends from 59, which extends from 61, which extends from 60, therefore 51 extends from 60 at least indirectly), and is provided at a position overlapping at least one of the first curved part and the second curved part in a plate thickness direction (as shown, overlaps curved portion of 61, and 60).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (KR 2005/0056745 A) in view of Andrews et al. (U.S. 7040464).
Regarding claim 8, Ryu discloses A disc brake (see fig. 4) comprising: a friction pad (10/11); and a return spring (see figs. 5-7, 50) including:
a fixing part (55) fixed to a friction pad (at 57);
a first extension part formed in a plate shape and extending from the fixing part in a direction away from the friction pad (see annotated figure);
a second extension part formed in a plate shape and extending from the first extension part in a direction of pressing the friction pad (see annotated figure);
a contact part formed in a plate shape and extending from the second extension part to come into contact with a carrier attached to a non-rotating portion of a vehicle (see annotated figure);
edge portions which are surfaces each extending in a plate thickness direction of the first extension part, the second extension part, and the contact part (all thin edges of the spring 50); and
a cover part covering at least a part of the edge portions (see annotated figure);
wherein the cover part is formed of an elastic member (it is integral with the remainder of the spring 50 and since the spring inherently has spring properties, the cover part is deemed to be “formed of” the elastic member as claimed, at least in part).
PNG
media_image2.png
518
641
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 7 of Ryu.
Ryu does not appear to disclose a separate cover, but rather the cover is integral with the remainder of the spring. In the same field of endeavor of springs for brake disk pads, Andrews teaches (figs. 5-10) a return spring including a main body (74) including a first extension part (100), second extension part (102), and contact part (106), and a cover part (76) formed of a separate member from the return spring main body (74). Andrews also teaches the cover part being formed of an elastic member (see col. 6 lines 24-31). 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 cover part a separate piece from the spring as suggested by Andrews to use the cover portion as a means to prevent the spring from deforming or twisting under stress and to aid in spring mounting and stability. As shown in Andrews, the equivalent cover 76 is clipped on top of the return spring 74, where the curve 126 sits in front of the lower portion 90 (equivalent to the fixing part). When forces are experienced this portion 126 of the cover, this aids in preventing deforming or twisting of the spring 74 Further, the presence of this piece 76 that is not part of the spring 74 but mounted thereto aids in the stability and mounting of the spring 74, since it is clipped on top of the spring 74. Further, it is noted that such a change amounts to making separable that which was previously integral, which has been held to involve only routine skill in the art. Nerwin V. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (KR 2005/0056745 A) in view of Andrews et al. (U.S. 7040464) and Toguri et al. (U.S. 2017/0307033).
Regarding claim 7, Ryu discloses A disc brake (see fig. 4) comprising: a friction pad (10/11); and a return spring (see figs. 5-7, 50) including:
a fixing part (55) fixed to a friction pad (at 57);
a first extension part formed in a plate shape and extending from the fixing part in a direction away from the friction pad (see annotated figure);
a second extension part formed in a plate shape and extending from the first extension part in a direction of pressing the friction pad (see annotated figure);
a contact part formed in a plate shape and extending from the second extension part to come into contact with a carrier attached to a non-rotating portion of a vehicle (see annotated figure);
edge portions which are surfaces each extending in a plate thickness direction of the first extension part, the second extension part, and the contact part (all thin edges of the spring 50); and
a cover part covering at least a part of the edge portions (see annotated figure).
Ryu does not appear to disclose a separate cover, but rather the cover is integral with the remainder of the spring. In the same field of endeavor of springs for brake disk pads, Andrews teaches (figs. 5-10) a return spring including a main body (74) including a first extension part (100), second extension part (102), and contact part (106), and a cover part (76) formed of a separate member from the return spring main body (74). Andrews also teaches the cover part being formed of an elastic member (see col. 6 lines 24-31). 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 cover part a separate piece from the spring as suggested by Andrews to use the cover portion as a means to prevent the spring from deforming or twisting under stress and to aid in spring mounting and stability. As shown in Andrews, the equivalent cover 76 is clipped on top of the return spring 74, where the curve 126 sits in front of the lower portion 90 (equivalent to the fixing part). When forces are experienced this portion 126 of the cover, this aids in preventing deforming or twisting of the spring 74 Further, the presence of this piece 76 that is not part of the spring 74 but mounted thereto aids in the stability and mounting of the spring 74, since it is clipped on top of the spring 74. Further, it is noted that such a change amounts to making separable that which was previously integral, which has been held to involve only routine skill in the art. Nerwin V. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Ryu discloses the cover is integrally formed with the remainder of the spring and therefore of the same material as the spring as a whole, but does not appear to disclose the material thereof. In the same field of endeavor of springs for brake disk pads, Toguri teaches a single piece spring 20 made of a metallic plate or resin (see pgh. 0089). 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 spring of Ryu from a resin material as suggested by Toguri to utilize a material that is quieter, lighter, and/or cheaper than a metallic material. Further, since Toguri teaches that both of these are known for use as a brake pad spring, selecting a known material for a known purpose would yield predictable results of having a spring with the necessary resilience properties and suitable for the environment of a pad return spring.
Ryu discloses the return spring and a cover part in general, Toguri suggests that the return spring (which includes the cover part) can be made of resin, and Andrews suggests that the cover part can be a separate component than the remainder of the return spring. When viewed together, the combination of references suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that a separate cover part can be provided that is made of resin and of the same material as the rest of the return spring. Upon making each modification as described above, one of ordinary skill in the art arrives at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant contends on pages 10-12 that Ryu does not anticipate claim 1 (or 10 though not addressed) due to the newly presented claim limitations regarding the “one plane”. The interpretation of Ryu has been modified to meet the claim language, as appears above.
Applicant contends on pages 14-15 of the remarks that Ryu in view of Toguri fails to disclose or suggest does not disclose a separate cover part as required by amended claim 7. It is noted that this limitation comes from original claim 9, where Ryu was modified by the teachings of Andrews to meet the limitation. Accordingly, this claim is rejected over Ryu in view of Andrews as appears above.
Applicant contends on pages 14-15 of the remarks that Ryu cannot be modified by the material of Toguri because providing resin for a return spring would adversely affect spring characteristics such as resiliency and durability. This is not found persuasive, because Toguri explicitly discloses using “springs such as a spring made of a material other than a metallic plate (for example, a resin material)” (pgh. 0089). Accordingly, Toguri deems that utilizing resin material for a return spring is a suitable material, And Ryu is also directed to the identical environment of return springs. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to the teachings of Toguri for a different spring material if the metallic spring has problems with noise, weight, cost, or other factor affecting replacing a metallic spring with a resin spring.
Applicant contends on pages 16-17 of the remarks that Ryu does not disclose a separate member for the cover part, thus Ryu does not anticipate claim 8 as amended. It is noted that this limitation comes from original claim 9, where Ryu was modified by the teachings of Andrews to meet the limitation. Accordingly, this claim is rejected over Ryu in view of Andrews as appears above.
Applicant contends on page 16 that Ryu does not disclose the “cover part is formed of an elastic member” as claimed in claim 8. Since Ryu disclose that element 50 is a spring (abstract at least), each constituent part of the spring 50 will be “formed of an elastic member”, namely the material of the spring, at least in part. As such, the identified section in the annotated figure above for the cover part carries out this limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/DAVID MORRIS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights