. 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 –
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashizume et al (JP2012117655).
In reference to claim 1, Hashizume teaches a floating disc brake device comprising: an inner pad (58) configured to be disposed on an axially inner side of a rotor; an outer pad (58) configured to be disposed on an axially outer side of the rotor; a support (38, 32) configured to be fixed to a vehicle body and configured to support the inner pad and the outer pad such that the inner pad and the outer pad are movable in an axial direction; and a caliper body (12) supported to be movable in the axial direction with respect to the support, wherein the support includes an inner guide portion (40a,) configured to support the inner pad such that the inner pad is movable in the axial direction, and an outer guide portion (40b, 30) configured to support the outer pad such that the outer pad is movable in the axial direction, outer side portions of the caliper body includes a cylinder (where piston 15 is disposed), and includes an inner body portion configured to be disposed on the axially inner side of the rotor and an outer body portion (18) configured to press the outer pad during braking, and the outer body portion includes a through hole (18a) that opens only in the axial direction in at least one of a portion facing the outer guide portion in the axial direction and a portion facing the outer guide portion in the axial direction; and a pad clip (68) disposed between the outer pad and the outer guide portion, wherein a portion of the pad clip is configured to be inserted into the through hole (see figure 2). Please note that the language of configured to is used. As is clearly seen in the figures of the reference, the spring portions of the pad claim are sized in manner that they are able to fit in the through hole (see figure 2). In addition, the pad clip, given BRI can be considered to be between a potion of the pad and the support which includes the slide pin or the ears of the support 40b when viewed in the axial direction.
IN reference to claim 3, Hashizume teaches the floating disc brake device according to claim 1, wherein the through hole has a shape and a size into which the portion of the pad clip can be inserted substantially without a gap. Please note that the clip does not have a gap as depicted on the upper side of figure 2. It appears the that clip is contacting the hole 18A on the upper side resulting in no gap. In addition, the clip widens as it moves toward the center and thus if inserted in the hole, would result in no gap due to the increased width. Note that the claim also uses the language “can be”.
In reference to claim 8, Hashizume teaches the floating disc brake device according to any one of claims 1, wherein the outer body portion has a circumferential dimension larger than a circumferential dimension of the support. Please note that since the circumferential dimension is not defined in the claim, an dimension meets the claim. It is recommended that this feature be amended to be more narrowly defined.
In reference to claim 14, Hashizume teaches the floating disc brake device according to any one of claims I, wherein a central axis of the through hole and a central axis of the rotor are parallel to each other.
In reference to claim 15, Hashizume teaches the outer body portion has two of the through hole.
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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashizume et al (JP2012117655).
In reference to claim 5-6, Hashizume fails to teach the claimed shape of the hole.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to change the shape of the hole of Hashizume as an obvious matter of design choice since it has been held that changes in shape are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the shape is significant. Further, it would have also been obvious to try as there are only a finite amount of shapes that would be able to be machined or formed in the body of Hashizume in order to perform the same function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 9-13 would be allowable if rewritten 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 to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments have been carefully considered, but the language of “between” is broad enough to read on the reference. Note that applicant does not specify a direction when stating that the parts are between each other. Please note that the amendment to claim 1, also prompted the allowable subject matter in claim 4.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEVON C KRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-7118. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7AM-4PM; Friday Mornings.
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.
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.
DEVON C. KRAMER
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3746
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
