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. 18/717,537 filed on June 7th, 2024. Claims 1-27 are pending.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s claim to priority of applications EP21213176.7 filed on December 8th, 2021 and application DE10 2022 204 394.4 filed on May 4th, 2022. Certified copies were received on June 7th, 2024 and November 8th, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 7th, 2024 and March 21st, 2026 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 1 (line 8), please change the recitation of “a sleeve with a bellows for sealing the gap between the bolt and brake holder” to - - a sleeve with a bellows for sealing [[the]] a gap between the bolt and brake holder - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 10 (lines 2-3), please change the recitation of “wherein one groove is placed diametrically opposite each rib” to - - wherein a respective one of the grooves is placed diametrically opposite [[each]] a respective one of the ribs - - to correct a minor informality.
Regarding Claim 11 (lines 3-4), please change the recitation of “an areal proportion of load-bearing ribs predominates, compared to a proportion of non-load-bearing grooves” to - - an areal proportion of the load-bearing ribs predominates, compared to a proportion of the non-load-bearing grooves - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 7.
Regarding Claim 12 (line 3), please change the recitation of “an odd number of grooves and an odd number of ribs” to - - an odd number of the grooves and an odd number of the ribs - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 7.
Regarding Claim 13 (line 3), please change the recitation of “seven grooves and seven ribs” to - - seven of the grooves and seven of the ribs - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 7.
Regarding Claim 16 (line 1), please change the recitation of “wherein the seat together with reinforcing means” to - - wherein [[the]] a seat together with a reinforcing means - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 17 (line 2), please change the recitation of “wherein bore” to - - wherein the bore - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19 (line 3), please change the recitation of “formed smoothly on the front side” to - - formed smoothly on [[the]] a front side - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 21 (line 2), please change the recitation of “wherein the holding projection of the guide section” to - - wherein [[the]] a holding projection of the guide section - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 21 (line 4), please change the recitation of “fixing of the bellows sleeve” to - - fixing of the [[bellows]] sleeve - - as this feature is previously referred to in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 24 (line 4), please change the recitation of “between the holding projection and collar” to - - between [[the]] a holding projection and a collar - - 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 3, 5-14, 16 and 19-26 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 3, in the recitation of “wherein the restoring force is transmitted to the bolt by ribs via the guide section” it is unclear which guide section Applicant is referring to (see claim 1, lines 7 and 9). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the restoring force is transmitted to the bolt by ribs via the guide section of the sleeve” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 5 (line 1), in the recitation of “wherein the guide section” it is unclear which guide section Applicant is referring to. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the guide section of the sleeve” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 6 (lines 4-6), the recitation of “an additional restoring force portion on the basis of a defined bellows section, and wherein a bellows which is preferably folded in a zigzag-shaped manner permits a defined elastic reverse deformation of the bellows” is unclear for various reasons. The difference between the “automatically restored to an original position” recited in claim 1 (line 13), the “additional restoring force portion” recited in claim 6 (line 4) and the “defined elastic reverse deformation” recited in claim 6 (line 6) is unclear. It is also unclear if the recited “additional restoring force portion” corresponds to a physical feature previously recited in claims 1 or 6, or a functional characteristic of a physical feature recited in claims 1 or 6, or a new physical feature not yet recited in claims 1 or 6. The difference between the “bellows” recited in claim 1 (line 8), the “defined bellows section” recited in claim 6 (line 4) and the “bellows” recited in claim 6 (line 6) is unclear. Applicant’s recited preference leads to confusion over the intended scope of claim 6. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “the bellows which is [[preferably]] folded in a zigzag-shaped manner permits [[a]] the defined elastic reverse deformation of the bellows” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion. See MPEP 2173.05(d) - Exemplary Claim Language ("for example," "such as").
Regarding Claim 7 (line 2), in the recitation of “wherein the guide section” it is unclear which guide section Applicant is referring to. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the guide section of the sleeve” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 8 (line 3), the recitation of “the bolt support” lacks antecedent basis. It is generally unclear if the recited “bolt support” corresponds to a physical feature previously recited in claim 1, or a functional characteristic of a physical feature recited in claim 1, or a new physical feature not yet recited in claim 1. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 11 (lines 2-3), the recitation of “wherein with reference to the support on the bolt” lacks antecedent basis. It is generally unclear if the recited “support on the bolt” corresponds to a physical feature previously recited in claim 1, or a functional characteristic of a physical feature recited in claim 1, or a new physical feature not yet recited in claim 1. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 19 (lines 3-4), the difference between the “front side” recited in claim 19 (line 3) and the “free end” recited in claim 19 (line 4) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Examiner will interpret the front side as the free end during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 20 (line 2), in the recitation of “wherein the guide section” it is unclear which guide section Applicant is referring to. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the guide section of the sleeve” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 20 (lines 2-4), in the recitation of “wherein the guide section is in the form of a radially outwardly directed cylindrical sealing surface over a section length circumferentially in a manner free from undercuts” the metes and bounds of “free from undercuts” is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the guide section is in the form of a radially outwardly directed cylindrical sealing surface over a section length circumferentially
Regarding Claim 21 (line 3), in the recitation of “the guide section” it is unclear which guide section Applicant is referring to. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “the guide section of the sleeve” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 22 (line 2), in the recitation of “wherein the guide section” it is unclear which guide section Applicant is referring to. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the guide section of the sleeve” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 22 (lines 2-3), in the recitation of “wherein the guide section is provided in such a way that a length is larger than a length” it is unclear how many lengths Applicant intends to recite. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the guide section is provided in such a way that a first length is larger than a second length” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 23 (lines 2-3), in the recitation of “wherein a free end of the sleeve is formed without a sealing lip, and is received in the bore with a clearance” the metes and bounds of “without a sealing lip” is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein a free end of the sleeve
Regarding Claim 24 (line 5), in the recitation of “that the guide section” it is unclear which guide section Applicant is referring to. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “that the guide section of the sleeve” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 25 (lines 2-3), in the recitation of “wherein the sleeve in the region of a mouth of a guide section” it is unclear how many guide sections Applicant intends to recite. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the sleeve in the region of a mouth of [[a]] the guide section” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 26, in the recitation of “wherein the sleeve at least one of at and adjacent to a seat on the sleeve has an integrated insertion aid” it is generally unclear what Applicant intended to recite. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein adjacent to a seat of the bolt” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Claims 8-14 and 16 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, 11, 14-15 and 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2022/0018406). Kim was cited on the IDS filed June 7th, 2024.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a motor vehicle disk brake (Figs. 1-5, “caliper brake” 100) comprising:
a brake caliper housing (“caliper housing” 130) having a transmission member (“piston” 131), with;
a brake holder (“carrier” 120), with a guide device (“guide hole” 124, “guide rod” 140 and “boot” 150) for axially displaceably guiding the brake caliper housing (130) on the brake holder (120);
a bolt (140) as a component of the guide device (124, 140, 150),
wherein the bolt (140) is fixed to the brake caliper housing (130) and is provided in a manner guided and mounted axially displaceably in a bore (124) in the brake holder (120) via a guide section (“cylindrical guide shaft portion” 144);
a sleeve (150) with a bellows (“corrugate part” 153) for sealing the gap between the bolt (140) and brake holder (120),
wherein the sleeve (150) has a guide section (“second coupling part” 152) which is fixed to the holder (120) and acts on the bolt (140) in a force-fitting manner (see Figs. 4-5), and
wherein the sleeve (150) is arranged between the brake holder (120) and the brake caliper housing (130) in such that the sleeve (150) via the guide section (152) is automatically restored to an original position by relative displacement between the brake caliper housing (130) and the brake holder (120; [0045] – “Referring to FIG. 5, when the guide rod 140 moves together with the caliper housing 130 during braking, a load distribution occurs on the elastic protrusion 154 as indicated by arrows F. Accordingly, a load is applied to the guide rod 140 in the direction of an arrow B by the reaction force generated on the elastic protrusion 154 when braking is released. That is, because the elastic protrusion 154 generates a reaction force depending on the movement of the guide rod 140 only during braking, the elastic protrusion 154 applies a load to the guide rod 140 in the opposite direction (arrow B) to the braking direction by an elastic restoring force according to the reaction force after the braking is released, so that a roll-back function of returning the caliper housing 130 moving together with the guide rod 140 to its original position is performed”).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 1, wherein the guide section (Figs. 1-5, 152) defines a continuous surface contact (see Fig. 5) between at least one rib (“elastic protrusion” 154) and the bolt (140) over a length (see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sleeve (Figs. 1-5; 150) is clamped elastically deformably (via 150) with a defined spring stiffness between the bolt (140) and brake holder (120) in order to generate an additional restoring force portion on the basis of a defined bellows section (153; see 112(b) rejection above), and
wherein a bellows (153) which is preferably folded in a zigzag-shaped manner permits a defined elastic reverse deformation of the bellows (153; see [0045]; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 1, wherein the guide section (Figs. 1-5, 152) has alternately arranged ribs (154) and grooves (“slots” 156; see Fig. 2),
wherein the ribs (154) sit smoothly and directed in parallel on a circumferential surface of the bolt (140; see Figs. 2 and 5), and
the ribs (154) and grooves (156) each extend parallel to an axis of the bolt (140; see Figs. 2 and 5).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 7, wherein the ribs (Figs. 1-5, 154) and grooves (156) of the sleeve (150) are configured (see ribs and grooves in Fig. 2) in such a way that the bolt support thereof in the alternation between brake actuation and brake release alternately causes pressure and suction via a micro deformation and micro reverse deformation during an automatic lubricant pump operation, to permit at least one of lubricated bolt contact, lubricant distribution and lubricant circulation (see ribs and grooves in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 7,
wherein with reference to the support on the bolt (Figs. 1-5, 140), an areal proportion of load-bearing ribs (154) predominates, compared to a proportion of non-load-bearing grooves (156; see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 7,
wherein the ribs (Figs. 1-5, 154) are perpendicular in a direction facing the surface of the bolt (140, see Figs. 2 and 5).
Regarding Claim 15, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the sleeve (Figs. 1-5, 150) has at least one seat (“first coupling part” 151) with at least one reinforcing means (outermost circumferential portion of 151) for at least one of fixing and sealing purposes (see Figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding Claim 17, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein bore (Figs. 1-5, 124) in the brake holder (120) is provided as a stepped bore (see Fig. 4) having a first section (“fastening groove” 125) of large diameter for the proportional indirect guiding of the bolt (140) via the guide section (152) of the sleeve (150), and
wherein a second section (remaining portion of 124) of small diameter is provided, which serves for the proportional and direct guiding of the bolt (140) in the brake holder (120; see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 18, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the guide section (Figs. 1-5, 152) of the sleeve (150) has, on its radially outer circumference, a holding projection (“protrusion” 155) for form-fitting engagement in a cavity (125) of the brake holder (120; see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 19, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the guide section (Figs. 1-5, 152) of the sleeve (150) is formed smoothly on the front side (outermost axial portion of 152) and circumferentially on its outer circumference starting from its free end and also over a defined section length (see Fig. 4), with a minimum outer diameter without a holding projection (155; see Fig. 4), in a manner appropriate for plugging-in installation (see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 20, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the guide section (Figs. 1-5, 152) is in the form of a radially outwardly directed cylindrical sealing surface (155) over a section length circumferentially in a manner free from undercuts (see Fig. 2) such that sealing is provided for simple plugging-in and latching installation fixing in the brake holder (120; see Figs. 3-4; [0043] – “As illustrated in FIG. 3, the second coupling part 152 may be provided with a protrusion 155 protruding toward the fastening groove 125 to be seated on and coupled to the fastening groove 125”).
Regarding Claim 21, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the holding projection (Figs. 1-5, 155) of the guide section (152), starting from its a free end (outboard axial end of 152), is provided offset back by a length such that plugging-in fixing of the bellows sleeve (150) over the length by via elastic bracing is provided (see gap formed between 120 and 152 in Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 22, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the guide section (Figs. 1-5, 152) is provided in such a way that a length is larger than a length (see Fig. 4; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 23, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein a free end (Figs. 1-5, outboard axial end of 152) of the sleeve (152) is formed without a sealing lip (see 112(b) rejection above), and is received in the bore (124) with a clearance (see clearance in Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 24, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein clamping with an internal force flux for the purpose of fixing the sleeve (Figs. 1-5, 152) in the brake holder (120) by clamping is closed over an insertion length between the holding projection (155) and collar (collar portion of 150 between 155 and 153) such that the guide section (152) is provided without a clamping force flux over an insertion length (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 25, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the sleeve (Figs. 1-5, 150) in the region of a mouth (left mouth portion of 150) of a guide section (152) has an integrated bolt centering section (154; see Figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding Claim 26, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the sleeve (Figs. 1-5, 150) at least one of at and adjacent to a seat (for receiving 151) on the sleeve (150) has an integrated insertion aid (insertion aid portion between 153 and 151; see Figs. 2 and 4; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 27, Kim teaches a sleeve (Figs. 1-5, 150) for a motor vehicle disk brake (100) comprising:
a seat (151), a bellows (153) and a guide section (152) which is fixed to a holder (120) and acts on a bolt (140) in a force-fitting manner (see Fig. 5), and
wherein the sleeve (150) is arranged between the brake holder (120) and a brake caliper housing (130) such that the sleeve (150) via the guide section (152) is automatically restored to an original position by relative displacement between the brake caliper housing (130) and the brake holder (120; see [0045]).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0018406), in view of Charmat (US 2003/0015381). Charmat was cited on the IDS filed June 7th, 2024.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sleeve (Figs. 1-5, 150) is manufactured from something that automatically generates a restoring force (see [0045]).
Kim does not teach “wherein the sleeve is manufactured from elastomer to automatically generate a restoring force”. In other words, Kim does not explicitly disclose the material used to manufacture the elastic sleeve (Figs. 1-5, 150).
Charmat teaches a sleeve ([0002] – “Rubber insulators”) is manufactured from elastomer ([0002] – “It has been suggested that slide forces could be reduced by increasing the clearance tolerance between the guide pins and bores in the fixed support to provide for a free sliding structure. However, when this type structure was evaluated, noise was created as the pins rattled in the bores when the vehicle traveled on a road having an uneven surface. Rubber insulators that surrounded the guide pins were added to attenuate the noise created by the rattle” emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the elastic sleeves taught by Kim with the elastomer taught by Charmat, such that “wherein the sleeve is manufactured from elastomer to automatically generate a restoring force”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of reducing noise developing by the guide device taught by Kim.
Regarding Claim 3, Kim and Charmat teach the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 2,
Kim teaches wherein the restoring force (Figs. 1-5; via 150) is transmitted to the bolt (140) by ribs (154) via the guide section (152; see Fig. 5; see [0045]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim and Charmat teach the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 2,
Kim teaches wherein the sleeve (Figs. 1-5, 150) has a defined spring stiffness of the elastomer (taught in combination with Charmat; see [0045] of Kim).
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0018406), in view of KR 20-0206378.
Regarding Claim 9, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 7.
Kim does not teach “wherein no more than one groove is arranged diametrically opposite each rib, and vice versa”.
KR 20-0206378 teaches no more than one groove (Fig. 3, “air flow path” 31) is arranged diametrically opposite each rib (“protrusion” 3 or 4), and vice versa (see cross-sectional view in Fig. 3; “Here, the two inner protrusions 3 and 4 compressing the outside of the guide pin 2 are positioned so that the center of the first inner protrusion 3 is located 1.2 mm away from the end thereof, and the two inner protrusions The intervals of the stages 3 and 4 are 2.4 mm, and the height, the lower width, and the upper width are 0.6 mm, 1.5 mm, and 0.8 mm, respectively, and the air flows when the guide pin 2 is perturbed. The air flow path 31 for making it is formed”).
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 ribs and grooves taught by Kim in the configuration suggested by KR 20-0206378, such that “wherein no more than one groove is arranged diametrically opposite each rib, and vice versa”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of permitting the ribs taught by Kim to easily elastically deform as needed ([0047] of Kim – “By the slot 156, a space in which the elastic protrusion 154 may be easily elastically deformed may be secured”). Furthermore, courts have held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In this case, discovering the relative proportional size of the ribs and grooves taught by Kim would have been obvious to try as there are a finite number of ribs and grooves that can be arranged within the 360° perimeter of the sleeve taught by Kim. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) – “Optimization within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation”.
Regarding Claim 10, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed claim 7.
Kim does not teach “wherein one groove is placed diametrically opposite each rib, said groove being arranged centrally between two flanking rib sections”.
KR 20-0206378 teaches one groove (Fig. 3, 31) is placed diametrically opposite each rib (3 or 4),
said groove (31) being arranged centrally between two flanking rib sections (3 or 4; see cross-sectional view in Fig. 3).
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 ribs and grooves taught by Kim in the configuration suggested by KR 20-0206378, such that “wherein one groove is placed diametrically opposite each rib, said groove being arranged centrally between two flanking rib sections”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of permitting the ribs taught by Kim to easily elastically deform as needed ([0047] of Kim – “By the slot 156, a space in which the elastic protrusion 154 may be easily elastically deformed may be secured”). Furthermore, courts have held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In this case, discovering the relative proportional size of the ribs and grooves taught by Kim would have been obvious to try as there are a finite number of ribs and grooves that can be arranged within the 360° perimeter of the sleeve taught by Kim. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) – “Optimization within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation”.
Regarding Claim 12, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 7.
Kim does not explicitly teach “wherein the guide section of the sleeve has an odd number of grooves and an odd number of ribs”.
KR 20-0206378 teaches a guide section of a sleeve (Fig. 3, left end of 5) has an odd number of grooves (31) and an odd number of ribs (3 or 4; three of each seen in cross-sectional view of Fig. 3).
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 quantity of ribs and grooves taught by Kim as suggested by KR 20-0206378, such that “wherein the guide section of the sleeve has an odd number of grooves and an odd number of ribs”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of permitting the ribs taught by Kim to easily elastically deform as needed ([0047] of Kim – “By the slot 156, a space in which the elastic protrusion 154 may be easily elastically deformed may be secured”). Furthermore, courts have held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In this case, discovering the optimum quantity of ribs and grooves taught by Kim would have been obvious to try as there are a finite number of ribs and grooves that can be arranged within the 360° perimeter of the sleeve taught by Kim. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) – “Optimization within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation”.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0018406), in view of Jenkins (US 12,044,278).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim teaches the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 7.
Kim does not teach “wherein the guide section of the sleeve has seven grooves and seven ribs”.
Jenkins teaches a guide section (Figs. 5-6, “passage” 204) of a sleeve (“sleeve” 188) has seven grooves (“recesses” 222) and seven ribs (between 222).
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 quantity of ribs and grooves taught by Kim as suggested by Jenkins, such that “wherein the guide section of the sleeve has seven grooves and seven ribs”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of permitting the ribs taught by Kim to easily elastically deform as needed ([0047] of Kim – “By the slot 156, a space in which the elastic protrusion 154 may be easily elastically deformed may be secured”). Furthermore, courts have held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In this case, discovering the optimum quantity of the ribs and grooves would have been obvious to try as there are a finite number of ribs and grooves that can be arranged within the 360° perimeter of the sleeve taught by Kim. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) – “Optimization within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation”.
Regarding Claim 16, Kim and Jenkins teach the motor vehicle disk brake as claimed in claim 13,
Kim teaches wherein the seat (Figs. 1-5, 151) together with reinforcing means (outermost circumferential portion of 151) is annular, and placed in a circumferential groove of the bolt (140; see Fig. 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Wang (CN 208 858 817), KR 10-14027470, Oudin (FR 2 935 453) and Mahoudeaux (FR 2 976 991) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" disclose similar disc brake sleeves comprising guide sections 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