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. 18/715,166 filed on May 31st, 2024. Claims 12-28 are pending.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s claim to priority of application IT 10 2021 0000 30617 filed on December 3rd, 2021. A certified copy was received on May 31st, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 31st, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 13 (lines 11-12), please change the recitation of “due to an elastic deformation of the constraining element during the braking action” to - - due to [[an]] the elastic deformation of the constraining element during the braking action - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 12 (lines 22-23).
Regarding Claim 23 (lines 2-3), please change the recitation of “the first bushing comprises a first bushing flange, and the second bushing comprises a second bushing flange” to - - the first bushing comprises [[a]] the first bushing flange, and the second bushing comprises [[a]] the second bushing flange - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 21 (last clause).
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 12-27 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 Claims 12-13, 15, 20-24 and 26, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. See relevant 112(b) rejections below.
Regarding Claim 12 (lines 3-4), in the recitation of “a circumferential direction, orthogonal to both the axial direction and the radial direction” it is generally unclear how the circumferential direction (Fig. 1, C-C) is orthogonal to the radial direction (R-R). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a circumferential direction, orthogonal to [[both]] the axial direction
Regarding Claim 12 (lines 6-7), in the recitation of “a caliper body adapted to straddle an associable disc of the disc brake” the difference between the “disc of the disc brake” recited in claim 12 (line 2) and the “associable disc of the disc brake” recited in claim 12 (line 7) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a caliper body adapted to straddle the disc of the disc brake” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 12 (lines 12-14), in the recitation of “a connecting portion adapted to connect the caliper body to the first fixing portion at least along a direction parallel to said axial direction or along a direction parallel to said radial direction” the difference between the “direction parallel to said axial direction” recited in claim 12 (line 13) and the “axial direction” recited in claim 12 (lines 1-2) is unclear. The difference between the “direction parallel to said radial direction” recited in claim 12 (line 14) and the “radial direction” recited in claim 12 (line 3) is also unclear. It is also unclear how the connecting portion (Figs. 1-4; 6) connects the caliper body (5) to the first fixing portion (7) along said axial direction (X-X). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a connecting portion adapted to connect the caliper body to the first fixing portion along said radial direction” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 12 (lines 14-17), in the recitation of “wherein the connecting portion allows a free movement of the caliper body relative to the supporting structure along a predetermined direction, wherein said predetermined direction is incident to said axial direction and to said radial direction or to directions parallel thereto” the difference between the “tangential direction” recited in claim 12 (lines 4-5) and the “predetermined direction” recited in claim 12 (line 16) is unclear. It is also unclear how the predetermined direction (Fig. 1, P-P) is incident to the axial direction (X-X) and radial directions (R-R) or to directions parallel thereto. It is also unclear what directions the recitation of “directions parallel thereto” corresponds to. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the connecting portion allows a free movement of the caliper body relative to the supporting structure along the tangential direction, wherein said tangential direction is orthogonal to said axial direction and to said radial direction
Regarding Claim 12 (lines 19-21), in the recitation of “said caliper and support assembly further comprises a constraining element configured to connect the caliper body to the second fixing portion along said predetermined direction preventing the free movement of the caliper body” the difference between the “tangential direction” recited in claim 12 (lines 4-5) and the “predetermined direction” recited in claim 12 (line 21) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “said caliper and support assembly further comprises a constraining element configured to connect the caliper body to the second fixing portion along said tangential direction preventing the free movement of the caliper body” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 12 (lines 22-24), in the recitation of “during a braking action the constraining element elastically deforms according to at least said predetermined direction, determining a displacement of the caliper body relative to the supporting structure in at least said predetermined direction” the difference between the “tangential direction” recited in claim 12 (lines 4-5) and the “predetermined direction” recited in claim 12 (lines 23 and 24) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “during a braking action the constraining element elastically deforms according to at least said tangential direction, determining a displacement of the caliper body relative to the supporting structure in at least said tangential direction” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 12 (lines 26-28), in the recitation of “said caliper and support assembly further comprises at least one detecting device that either directly or indirectly detects the displacement of the caliper body relative to the supporting structure along at least said predetermined direction” the difference between the “tangential direction” recited in claim 12 (lines 4-5) and the “predetermined direction” recited in claim 12 (line 28) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “said caliper and support assembly further comprises at least one detecting device that either directly or indirectly detects the displacement of the caliper body relative to the supporting structure along at least said tangential direction” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 13 (lines 2-3), in the recitation of “wherein the caliper and support assembly comprises at least one of the following features or a combination thereof” it is generally unclear which separate features Applicant is referring to in claim 13 (lines 4-13). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could number the separate features to clarify the recitation.
Regarding Claim 15 (lines 3-4), in the recitation of “a first connecting device that mainly develops along said radial direction or said axial direction” it is unclear how the first connecting device (Figs. 1-4; 13) mainly develops along the axial direction (X-X). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a first connecting device that mainly develops along said radial direction
Regarding Claim 15 (lines 5-6), in the recitation of “a second connecting device that mainly develops along said radial direction or said axial direction” it is unclear how the second connecting device (Figs. 1-4; 14) mainly develops along the axial direction (X-X). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a second connecting device that mainly develops along said radial direction
Regarding Claim 20 (lines 1-3), in the recitation of “wherein the caliper body comprises a first slot second wall that delimits the first slot downstream of the first slot first wall in direction of the first fixing portion” the difference between the “radial direction” recited in claim 12 (line 3) and the “direction of the first fixing portion” recited in claim 20 (line 3) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the caliper body comprises a first slot second wall that delimits the first slot downstream of the first slot first wall in the radial direction of the first fixing portion” 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 3-5), in the recitation of “wherein the caliper body comprises a second slot second wall that delimits the second slot downstream of the second slot first wall in direction of the first fixing portion” the difference between the “radial direction” recited in claim 12 (line 3) and the “direction of the first fixing portion” recited in claim 20 (line 5) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the caliper body comprises a second slot second wall that delimits the second slot downstream of the second slot first wall in the radial direction of the first fixing portion” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 21 (lines 11-13), in the recitation of “wherein the caliper and support assembly comprises at least one of the following features or a combination thereof” it is generally unclear which separate features Applicant is referring to in claim 21 (lines 14-42). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could number the separate features to clarify the recitation.
Regarding Claim 21 (lines 35-36), in the recitation of “wherein the guide plane is parallel to said predetermined direction and to said axial direction or to said radial direction” it is unclear how the guide plane of the first guide flange and second guide flange (Figs. 1-5; 22, 24) parallel to the radial direction (R-R). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the guide plane is parallel to said predetermined direction and to said axial direction
Regarding Claim 22 (lines 2-3), in the recitation of “said first connecting device comprises a first pin and at least one first bushing fitted on the first pin, wherein the first pin and the first bushing are mutually integral” it is unclear if Applicant intended to redefine the separably fitted first pin and first bushing. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “said first connecting device comprises a first pin and at least one first bushing fitted on the first pin
Regarding Claim 22 (lines 4-5), in the recitation of “wherein the caliper and support assembly comprises at least one of the following features or a combination thereof” it is generally unclear which separate features Applicant is referring to in claim 22 (lines 6-22). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could number the separate features to clarify the recitation.
Regarding Claim 22 (lines 9-10), in the recitation of “the first connecting device and the second connecting device each comprise a stud” the difference between the “first pin” recited in claim 22 (line 2), the “second pin” recited in claim 22 (line 6) and the “stud” recited in claim 22 (lines 9-10) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could remove the recitation to clarify the recitation. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 22 (lines 11-13), in the recitation of “the first guide bushing is made in one piece with the caliper body or the first guide bushing is housed in a first guide bushing seat made in the caliper body” it is unclear if Applicant intended to redefine the integrally connected first guide bushing (Fig. 5, 21) recited in claim 15 (line 10). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “
Regarding Claim 22 (line 14), in the recitation of “an inner wall comprising the first slot first wall” the difference between the “inner wall” recited in claim 22 (line 14) and the “first slot first wall” recited in claim 22 (line 14) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “an inner wall defines the first slot first wall” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 22 (lines 17-18), in the recitation of “the second guide bushing is made in one piece with the caliper body or the second guide bushing is housed in a second guide bushing seat made in the caliper body” it is unclear if Applicant intended to redefine the integrally connected second guide bushing recited in claim 15 (line 13). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “
Regarding Claim 22 (line 20), in the recitation of “an inner wall comprising the second slot first wall” the difference between the “inner wall” recited in claim 22 (line 20) and the “second slot first wall” recited in claim 22 (line 20) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “an inner wall defines the second slot first wall” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 23 (lines 12-15), in the recitation of “the first bushing and the second bushing have respective longitudinal lengths adapted to avoid a direct contact between the caliper body and the first fixing portion surface while maintaining a distance between the caliper body and the first fixing portion” it is unclear if Applicant intended to redefine the recitations of “the first bushing abuts with a first end thereof opposite the first bushing flange against the first fixing portion surface” (claim 23, lines 8-9) and “the second bushing abuts with a first end thereof opposite to the second bushing flange with the first fixing portion surface” (claim 23, lines 10-11). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could remove the recitation to clarify the recitation.
Regarding Claim 23 (lines 16-17), in the recitation of “the first pin and the second pin are integral with the first bushing and the second bushing” it is unclear if Applicant intended to redefine the recitations of “said first connecting device comprises a first pin and at least one first bushing fitted on the first pin” (claim 22, lines 2-3) and “the second connecting device comprises a second pin and at least one second bushing fitted on the second pin” (claim 22, lines 6-7). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could delete the recitation to clarify the recitation.
Regarding Claim 24 (lines 1-3), in the recitation of “wherein the first fixing portion and the second fixing portion are directly connected and/or integrated and/or made in one piece” it is unclear how the first and second fixing portions (Figs. 1-4; 7, 8) can be both connected and integrated and made in one piece. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the first fixing portion and the second fixing portion are directly connected [[and/or]] or integrated [[and/or]] or made in one piece” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 24 (lines 6-7), in the recitation of “wherein the caliper and support assembly comprises at least one of the following features” it is generally unclear which separate features Applicant is referring to in claim 24 (lines 8-16). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could number the separate features to clarify the recitation.
Regarding Claim 24 (last clause), in the recitation of “the connecting portion has main development along said radial direction or along said axial direction respectively forming a radial connection or an axial connection between the caliper body and the supporting structure” it is unclear how the connecting portion (Figs. 1-4; 6) has a main development along the axial direction (X-X). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “the connecting portion has main development along said radial direction
Regarding Claim 26 (lines 1-2), in the recitation of “wherein the at least one sensor is integral with the caliper body, optionally with the caliper body portion, or with the supporting structure, with the supporting structure portion” it is unclear how the sensor (Fig. 4, 44) can be integral with the caliper body (5). It is also unclear how many sensors Applicant intends to recite. It is also unclear if the sensor (Fig. 4, 44) can be both integral with the caliper body (5) and optionally with a different portion of the caliper body (5). It is also generally unclear if the list of alternative locations for the at least one sensor (44) are clearly defined. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the at least one sensor is integral with the caliper body, or with the caliper body portion, or with the supporting structure, or with the supporting structure portion” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 26 (lines 3-4), in the recitation of “wherein the caliper and support assembly comprises at least one of the following features” it is generally unclear which separate features Applicant is referring to in claim 26 (lines 5-18). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could number the separate features to clarify the recitation.
Regarding Claim 26 (lines 5-6), in the recitation of “the caliper body portion or the supporting structure portion comprises housed the at least one sensor” it is unclear what Applicant intended to recite. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “the caliper body portion or the supporting structure portion houses the at least one sensor” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 26 (lines 14-16), in the recitation of “the caliper body or the supporting structure portion comprises a flattened surface substantially orthogonal to a direction along which the displacement of the caliper body is measured, preferably along said predetermined direction” the difference between the “tangential direction” recited in claim 12 (lines 4-5) and the “direction along which the displacement of the caliper body is measured” recited in claim 26 (line 15) is unclear. Also, Applicant’s recited preferences in the recitation of “preferably” leads to confusion over the intended scope of claim 26. Also, it is unclear if Applicant intended to redefine the displacement of the caliper body defined in claim 12 (lines 22-24). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “the caliper body or the supporting structure portion comprises a flattened surface substantially orthogonal to [[a]] the tangential direction along which the displacement of the caliper body is measured
Claims 13-27 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office Action and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 28 is allowed.
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 Iwamoto (US 4,716,994), Lohberg (US 10,773,703) and Horiuchi (US 7,813,860) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" disclose similar caliper and support assemblies comprising detecting devices 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