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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted as of 8/31/2026 have been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 6/21/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Accordingly the foreign documents cited have not been considered on this IDS. CN 110219915 A has been considered and listed on the PTO-892 instead.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “electromagnetic inductor (8)” and “electromagnetic inductor (9)”. While the reference numerals do not affect the scope of the claim, the numbering is inconsistent.
Claim 2 recites “the at least one electromagnetic inductor being arranged sufficiently close to the brake pad to concentrate in its magnetic field the metal support…”. Applicant could consider whether this should read “concentrate its magnetic field in the metal support…” so that the claim does not appear to describe the inductor concentrating the metal support “in its magnetic field” as presently claimed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites, “the at least one braking element comprises a brake pad” and later recites “a brake caliper forming part of the braking system itself and carrying a pair of brake pads”. It is unclear if the claim requires both “a brake pad” and “a pair of brake pads”. In other words, it is unclear how many brake pads are being recited.
Claim 6 recites, “a brake disk”. Previously recited in claim 1 was “an element to be braked”, which is the brake disk. This constitutes a double inclusion. It is unclear if 2 brake disks are being recited. As best understood, there is only one brake disk being recited.
Claim 6 recites, “the brake caliper carrying on each side of the brake disk at least one electromagnetic inductor”. Previously recited in claim 2 was “at least an electromagnetic inductor”. This constitutes a double inclusion. It is unclear how many inductors are being recited.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 110219915 A) in view of Ekola (U.S. 9321605).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses (figs. 4-6) A vehicle braking system for vehicles (abstract at least) comprising:
an element to be braked (pg. 27 pgh. 1, “brake disc”) configured to be in use angularly connected to a wheel hub of a vehicle (typical construction in the art); and
at least a braking element (see fig. 5) configured to cooperate in use by friction with the element to be braked under the action of an actuator (pg. 18 last pgh, “brake caliper” at least), the braking element comprising: a support (1a); a block of friction material (1b) carried by the support; and a damping layer (7) carried by the support (1a);
an electric device (4a) configured to warm up the damping layer (turning on the coil warms up all connected components, including the damping layer 7);
a control unit (2) to switch on and off the electric device; and
a power source (2d) for the electric device and the control unit.
Wang does not appear to disclose the damping layer being interposed between the support and the friction material block. In the same field of endeavor of disk brakes, Ekola teaches (figs. 2-3) a friction brake including a support 310, a block of friction material 300, and a damping layer 308 interposed between the support and the friction material block (as shown). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have placed the damping layer of Wang between the support and the friction material to further reduce brake squeal, by isolating the support plate from the friction material (see col. 1 lines 24-39 of Ekola.
Wang does not appear to disclose the support being “metal”. Ekola teaches a support (310) that is metal (see col. 5 lines 21-25: “The various layers 300, 302, 308 and 310 may be attached to one another using any suitable method including welding or brazing between the metal surfaces”). 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 support of metal to utilize a relatively strong and inexpensive material to mount the damping layer and friction block to, thereby ensuring a reliable construction.
Regarding claim 2 , Wang as modified teaches (figs. 4-6) the electric device comprises: at least an electromagnetic inductor (coil 4a constitutes an inductor) configured to generate a magnetic field when powered by the power source in response to the control unit (a current is applied to the coil to generate heat, which necessarily produces a magnetic field due to Ampere’s Law),
the at least one electromagnetic inductor being arranged sufficiently close to the braking element to concatenate in its magnetic field the metal support and/or any electro-conductive component of the braking element (coil 4a is embedded in the support 1a as shown, thus it will concentrate its magnetic field in the support at least).
Regarding claim 3, Wang as modified teaches (figs. 4-6) the at least one electromagnetic inductor is carried by the support on a first face thereof (face in fig. 5 as shown)
Wang does not appear to disclose the face that carries the inductor is opposite to a second face carrying the friction block (6). It is noted that the support only has two primary faces, the one shown pointing up in fig. 5 and the one pointing down. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have placed the face carrying the inductor facing down instead of facing up as an obvious matter of engineering design choice. Since these two configurations are the only two possible configurations, one of ordinary skill in the art could produce the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Upon making the modification, the inductor is now on the back of the friction pad (since the damping layer was modified to be in between the support and the friction block), and now the inductor can be serviced more readily without taking apart the entire brake pad due to the inductor being in the middle of the pad.
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses (figs. 4-6) A method for eliminating or at least reducing a tendency of a braking element (1), in particular a brake pad, to squeal during cold braking maneuvers of a vehicle (abstract at least) equipped with the braking element (abstract at least), the braking element comprising a support (1a), a friction block (1b) carried by the support and a damping layer (7) or “underlayer”, the method comprising:
selectively producing a forced increase in a temperature of the damping layer (via coil 4a), which increase is independent of a natural temperature increase of the damping layer (7) that occurs in use due to the energy dispersed by friction during the braking maneuver (the coil enhances the heating of the brake pad including the damping layer);
the increase in temperature being set such as to maintain the whole damping layer (7) constantly above a glass transition temperature of rubber components thereof, so as to ensure that the damping layer (7) always works at conditions assuring maximum damping behavior of the same (page 28 last pgh, “improves the effect of reducing brake noise under normal temperature”, thus keeping the damping layer at a “normal temperature” carries out this effect, which corresponds to being above a glass transition temperature of rubber components thereof.)
Wang does not appear to disclose the damping layer being interposed between the support and the friction material block. In the same field of endeavor of disk brakes, Ekola teaches (figs. 2-3) a friction brake including a support 310, a block of friction material 300, and a damping layer 308 interposed between the support and the friction material block (as shown). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have placed the damping layer of Wang between the support and the friction material to further reduce brake squeal, by isolating the support plate from the friction material (see col. 1 lines 24-39 of Ekola.
Wang does not appear to disclose the support being “metal”. Ekola teaches a support (310) that is metal (see col. 5 lines 21-25: “The various layers 300, 302, 308 and 310 may be attached to one another using any suitable method including welding or brazing between the metal surfaces”). 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 support of metal to utilize a relatively strong and inexpensive material to mount the damping layer and friction block to, thereby ensuring a reliable construction.
Wang does not appear to disclose the damping layer being made of rubber. Ekola teaches damping layer 308 being made of rubber (abstract at least). 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 damping layer of rubber to provide a common and inexpensive material for providing damping properties. Upon making the combination, the damping layer would be kept above glass transition temperature, which for rubber is around -94F to -58F, as the heating threshold of Wang for turning on the inductor is 5 Centigrade.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 110219915 A) in view of Ekola (U.S. 9321605).
Regarding claim 6, Wang as modified teaches (figs. 4-6) the at least one braking element comprises a brake pad (as shown); and the at least one electromagnetic inductor is carried by a brake caliper forming part of the braking system itself (the caliper carries the brake pads as is known in the art, thus it also carries the inductor)
Wang does not appear to disclose the caliper carrying a pair of brake pads facing each other and facing from opposite sides to a brake disk arranged therebetween, such that the brake caliper carrying on each side of the brake disk at least one electromagnetic inductor and at least on one side thereof at least one said actuator for a respective brake pad. In the same field of endeavor of vehicle brakes, Granborg teaches (fig. 1) a brake disk (2) and a pair of brake pads (8A, 10A) facing each other and facing from opposite sides to a brake disk arranged therebetween (as shown). When combined with Wang, the caliper of wang would carry one brake disk on each side and an actuator thereof such that the brake caliper carrying on each side of the brake disk at least one electromagnetic inductor and at least on one side thereof at least one said actuator for a respective brake pad.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a brake disk on both sides to increase the available braking force, thus improving braking performance. Further, it is noted that such a modification amounts to a mere duplication of the working parts of the invention, which has been held to involve only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7-10 and 12-15 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome any 112(b) rejections, as appropriate.
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.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the PTO-892 disclose various brake pads with heating or damping elements.
Conclusion
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