DETAILED ACTION
The following is a first action on the merits of application serial no. 18/696500 filed 3/28/2024.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 3/28/24, 5/6/24 and 7/24/24 have all been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Bridge: 17. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 16-35 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 16 recites the limitation “a brake caliper which engages over a brake disk in use and is held axially displaceable, in relation to the brake disk, on guide rods which are connected to a vehicle- side brake carrier…..”. The term “use” when recited in an apparatus claim is generally considered indefinite and potentially rejectable under 101 as well per MPEP 2173.05(q). While the examiner doesn’t believe that the term as recited in claim 16 is considered rejectable under 101, it is currently indefinite as recited due to scope of coverage pertaining to the term being unclear, please amend accordingly.
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.
Claim(s) 16-22 and 24-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 4230005 (with machine translation). As to claim 16, DE discloses a disk brake for a utility vehicle, comprising: a brake caliper (2) which engages over a brake disk (1) in use and is held axially displaceable, in relation to the brake disk, on guide rods (within 51, 52) which are connected to a vehicle-side brake carrier, wherein in the case of a braking operation, an action-side brake pad (10), which is mounted in the brake carrier and has a pad support plate (80) and a friction lining (10) fastened thereon, is pressed against the brake disk by an application device which has a pivotable brake lever (4) and a central brake ram (3), the brake ram has an actuating spindle (72) and a pressure piece (70) contacting the pad support plate, a contact region between the brake ram and the pad support plate is inclined toward an entry side of the brake disk (as shown in Figure 3), in relation to a forward direction of travel of the utility vehicle.
As to claim 17, wherein the contact region has a contact surface which is incorporated in a side of the pad support plate facing away from the friction lining and which is inclined toward the entry side of the brake disk (as shown in Figure 3, incline is beveled towards pad direction).
As to claim 18, wherein a pressure piece contact surface of the pressure piece facing toward the pad support plate is inclined toward the entry side of the brake disk (page 5 paragraph 4 to paragraph 5 in machine translation).
As to claim 19, wherein an angle of inclination (a) of the contact surface is < 5 degrees in relation to the side of the pad support plate facing the friction lining (page 5 paragraph 6 describes an obvious design choice when choosing inclination angles that need to minimal at best to avoid residual wear).
As to claim 20, wherein an angle of inclination (a) of the contact surface is 0.50 to 5" in relation to the side of the pad support plate facing the friction lining (page 5 paragraph 6 describes an obvious design choice when choosing inclination angles that need to minimal at best to avoid residual wear).
As to claim 21, wherein the inclination of the contact surface runs in a longitudinal direction of the pad support plate (page 5 paragraph 4 to paragraph 5 in machine translation).
As to claim 22, wherein the inclination of the contact surfaces runs at an acute angle to the longitudinal extent of the pad support plate (inclination is described as a bevel type angle which is well known to encompass acute angles less than 90 degrees at best).
As to claim 24, wherein an angle of inclination (a) of the pressure piece contact surface is < 5 in relation to the side of the pad support plate facing the friction lining (page 5 paragraph 6 describes an obvious design choice when choosing inclination angles that need to minimal at best to avoid residual wear).
As to claim 25, wherein an angle of inclination (a) of the pressure piece contact surface is 0.50 to 50 in relation to the side of the pad support plate facing the friction lining (page 5 paragraph 6 describes an obvious design choice when choosing inclination angles that need to minimal at best to avoid residual wear).
As to claim 26, wherein the inclination of the pressure piece contact surface runs in a longitudinal direction of the pad support plate (page 5 paragraph 4 to paragraph 5 in machine translation).
As to claim 27, DE discloses a brake pad (10) for a disk brake for a utility vehicle, comprising: a pad support plate (80), and a friction lining (10) which is fastened to the support plate, wherein on a side opposing the friction lining, the pad support plate is inclined at least in some regions in a longitudinal extent and/or transversely thereto, in relation to the side facing the friction lining (as shown in Figure 3).
As to claim 28, wherein on a side facing away from the friction lining, the pad support plate has a contact surface which is inclined in the longitudinal direction and/or at an acute angle thereto (page 5 paragraph 4 to paragraph 5 in machine translation).
As to claim 29, wherein an angle of inclination is < 5 in relation to the side of the pad support plate facing the friction lining (page 5 paragraph 6 describes an obvious design choice when choosing inclination angles that need to minimal at best to avoid residual wear).
As to claim 30, wherein an angle of inclination is 0.50 to 50 in relation to the side of the pad support plate facing the friction lining (page 5 paragraph 6 describes an obvious design choice when choosing inclination angles that need to minimal at best to avoid residual wear).
As to claim 32, wherein the contact surface is centrally arranged (as shown in Figure 3).
As to claim 33, wherein the contact surface or a rear face of the pad support plate facing away from the friction lining is inclined to the left in a mounted position of the brake pad (as shown in Figure 3).
As to claim 34, DE discloses a brake ram (3) of an application device of a disk brake, comprising: an actuating spindle (72); and a pressure piece (70) which is attached to a front face of the actuating spindle and which has a contact surface on a side facing away from the actuating spindle, wherein the contact surface is inclined in relation to the longitudinal axis of the actuating spindle (page 5 paragraph 4 to paragraph 5 in machine translation).
As to claim 35, wherein the angle of inclination (a) is < 5" at a right angle to the longitudinal axis of the adjusting spindle (page 5 paragraph 6 describes an obvious design choice when choosing inclination angles that need to minimal at best to avoid residual wear).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 23 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE in view of Pahle 20140209418 (IDS cited art). DE discloses a contact surface between the pad support and pressure piece, but doesn’t explicitly disclose that the surface is circular and corresponds to a diameter of the pressure piece as recited.
Pahle discloses a disk brake having a support pad (6) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide a circular contact surface (Figure 5) on the support for engagement with a pressure piece (11) wherein the circular surface corresponds to diameter of piece (as shown in Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pad support of DE with a circular contact surface in view of Pahle to ensure precise contact during operation of brake system which avoids slipping errors between support and pressure piece which further reduces wear of pad.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Petschke et al 20220163077 discloses a brake system and shows that it is well known in the art to provide an angle within a brake pad support plate for engagement with a pressure piece (Figures 3a and 3b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 May 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights