DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 11a, 11b, 12, 12a, 14a.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 1-13 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.
Regarding independent claim 1, the phrase “a friction zone intended to engage with a brake disc in a friction direction” is indefinite because Figure 1 of the present application depicts the brake pad (11, 30) engaging the brake disc (40) in a vertical direction of FIG. 1 (i.e. in a direction parallel to arrows F and F/2), which his transverse to the friction direction (DF). It is suggested that this phrase be amended to recite --a friction zone intended to engage with a brake disc such that a force is generated on the brake pad in a friction direction--.
Regarding independent claim 1, the phrase “the center of the support zone is offset relative to the center of the friction zone, in a direction opposite to the friction direction” is indefinite because this subject matter (and the corresponding description in the specification) contradicts the configuration shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 discloses that the center of the support zone (12a) is offset from the center of the friction zone (14a) in the same direction as the friction direction (DF) (see FIG. 1, reproduced below). As such, it is unclear whether the support zone is required to be offset relative to the friction zone in a direction opposite to the friction direction is required (as claimed and described), or alternatively, that the support zone is required to be offset relative to the friction zone in the friction direction is required (as shown in Figures 1 and 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “Brake pad according to claim 1, characterized in that it includes fixing means on a caliper” is indefinite because claims 1 and 4 are only directed toward a pad and not the caliper. As such, it is unclear how the “pad” can include fixing means on a caliper. Furthermore, the use of the word “it” renders it unclear which element is being referenced.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “Caliper for a disc brake receiving a brake pad” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim positively requires the inclusion of the brake pad, or rather, that the claim is only directed toward the caliper which is configured for receiving a brake pad. For purposes of examination, this claim will be interpreted as positively requiring the brake pad.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “two pads” is indefinite because it is unclear whether either of these two pads are the same as the previously recited pad.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “Disc brake configured to receive a caliper, said caliper receiving a brake pad” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim positively requires the caliper and/or brake pad, or whether that the claim is only directed toward the Disc brake is configured for receiving the caliper and/or brake pad.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giacomazza (US 2009/0145702) in view of Baumgartner et al. (US 2019/0203785).
Regarding independent claim 1, Giacomazza discloses a brake pad (130) for a disc brake caliper (see FIG. 5), comprising a support plate (134) with a rear face presenting a support zone (see e.g. ¶ 0029, “support zone” is the zone upon which the piston contacts the support plate, thereby creating the “piston force centroid axis 182”) and a front face receiving a friction material (136) with a friction zone (170) intended to engage with a brake disc in a friction direction (R) (see ¶ 0028), characterized in that the center of the support zone (182) is offset relative to the center of the friction zone (180), in a direction opposite to the friction direction (see FIG. 5; see also rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b), above – it is unclear what is meant by “a direction opposite to the friction direction,” but Figure 5 Giacomazza discloses that center of the support zone (182) is offset along the direction (R) from the center of the friction zone; just as FIG. 1 of the present application shows that the center of the support zone (12a) is offset along the direction (DF) from the center of the friction zone (14a)).
Giacomazza discloses that the offset value D is a function of the coefficient of friction and thickness (see ¶ 0029), but does not disclose the specific relationship such that 0.1µE ≤ D ≤ 2µE, where: - µ is the friction coefficient of the friction zone against the disc; and - E is the distance between the friction zone and the center of a mounting surface of the pad, measured orthogonally to the friction zone.
Baumgartner teaches a brake pad (see Abstract, FIGS. 7-10D), wherein a moment generated by a friction zone of a pad contacting a disc is calculated as Ms=Fk*µB*H (see ¶ 0113), where Fk is the applied force (see ¶ 0106), µB is the friction coefficient of the friction zone against the disc (see ¶ 0107), and H equals the distance between the friction zone and a center of the mounting surface of the pad (see ¶ 0089; FIG. 7) and that a moment generated by a selected offset is Mk=Fk(e+C/2), where e+C/2 is the distance between the friction zone and the center of a mounting surface of the pad, measured orthogonally to the friction zone (see ¶¶ 0109, 0110).
In view of Giacomazza’s stated purpose of reducing uneven wear via an offset between a center of a friction zone and a center of a support zone (see Abstract, ¶ 0031; FIG. 5), and further in view of Giacomazza’s statement of the offset being a function of pad thickness and a coefficient of friction (see ¶ 0029), one of ordinary skill would have recognized that Baumgartner teaches the equations that describe the function of Giacomazza’s brake pad. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that equation for the friction zone moment MS in Baumgartner describes the force that leads to uneven wear and further recognized that the compensation moment Mk is the moment that counteracts the friction zone moment to prevent uneven wear. Thus, the correction moment Mk to counteract the friction zone moment Ms would result in the equation Fk*µB*H = Fk(e+C/2). This results in the Offset (e+C/2) = µB*H. As such, it would have been obvious to set the offset of Giacomazza to be equal to µB*H to completely counteract the friction zone moment, thereby preventing uneven wear.
Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to set D= µ*E in Giacomazza to completely counteract the moment that leads to uneven wear (see claim 1, above; discussing rationale to combine teachings of Baumgartner).
Regarding claim 3, Giacomazza discloses that the mounting surface comprises two lugs (134A, 134B), each configured to cooperate with a caliper bushing (124, 126).
Regarding independent claim 9, Giacomazza discloses caliper (10) for a disc brake receiving a brake pad (130) for a disc brake caliper (see FIG. 5), comprising a support plate (134) with a rear face presenting a support zone (see e.g. ¶ 0029, “support zone” is the zone upon which the piston contacts the support plate, thereby creating the “piston force centroid axis 182”) and a front face receiving a friction material (136) with a friction zone (170) intended to engage with a brake disc in a friction direction (R) (see ¶ 0028), characterized in that the center of the support zone (182) is offset relative to the center of the friction zone (180), in a direction opposite to the friction direction (see FIG. 5; see also rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b), above – it is unclear what is meant by “a direction opposite to the friction direction,” but Figure 5 Giacomazza discloses that center of the support zone (182) is offset along the direction (R) from the center of the friction zone; just as FIG. 1 of the present application shows that the center of the support zone (12a) is offset along the direction (DF) from the center of the friction zone (14a)).
Giacomazza discloses that the offset value D is a function of the coefficient of friction and thickness (see ¶ 0029), but does not disclose the specific relationship such that 0.1µE ≤ D ≤ 2µE, where: - µ is the friction coefficient of the friction zone against the disc; and - E is the distance between the friction zone and the center of a mounting surface of the pad, measured orthogonally to the friction zone.
Baumgartner teaches a brake pad (see Abstract, FIGS. 7-10D), wherein a moment generated by a friction zone of a pad contacting a disc is calculated as Ms=Fk*µB*H (see ¶ 0113), where Fk is the applied force (see ¶ 0106), µB is the friction coefficient of the friction zone against the disc (see ¶ 0107), and H equals the distance between the friction zone and a center of the mounting surface of the pad (see ¶ 0089; FIG. 7) and that a moment generated by a selected offset is Mk=Fk(e+C/2), where e+C/2 is the distance between the friction zone and the center of a mounting surface of the pad, measured orthogonally to the friction zone (see ¶¶ 0109, 0110).
In view of Giacomazza’s stated purpose of reducing uneven wear via an offset between a center of a friction zone and a center of a support zone (see Abstract, ¶ 0031; FIG. 5), and further in view of Giacomazza’s statement of the offset being a function of pad thickness and a coefficient of friction (see ¶ 0029), one of ordinary skill would have recognized that Baumgartner teaches the equations that describe the function of Giacomazza’s brake pad. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that equation for the friction zone moment MS in Baumgartner describes the force that leads to uneven wear and further recognized that the compensation moment Mk is the moment that counteracts the friction zone moment to prevent uneven wear. Thus, the correction moment Mk to counteract the friction zone moment Ms would result in the equation Fk*µB*H = Fk(e+C/2). This results in the Offset (e+C/2) = µB*H. As such, it would have been obvious to set the offset of Giacomazza to be equal to µB*H to completely counteract the friction zone moment, thereby preventing uneven wear.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giacomazza (US 2009/0145702) in view of Baumgartner et al. (US 2019/0203785) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dreher et al. (US 2018/0195569).
Regarding claim 4, Giacomazza does not disclose that the brake pad and/or caliper includes fixing means on a caliper, said fixing means comprising preventing means for the correct installation direction of the pad in the caliper.
Dreher teaches a brake pad (see Abstract; FIGS. 1-9) wherein it includes fixing means (21, 22) on a caliper, said fixing means comprising preventing means for the correct installation direction of the pad in the caliper (see ¶ 0037).
It would have been obvious to combine the fixing means and preventing means of Dreher with the brake pad of Giacomazza to prevent mismatching of the brake pad (see e.g. Dreher, ¶ 0037).
Regarding claim 5, Dreher teaches that the support plate has a first lug (10) of a first diameter (see ¶ 0037) and a second lug (12) of a second diameter different from the first (see ¶ 0037), with each lug configured to cooperate respectively with a first bushing (21) and a second bushing (22) of a caliper, forming a sliding connection between the pad and the caliper (see FIG. 1), and the preventing means is the diameter difference between the first and second lugs (see ¶ 0037).
Regarding claim 6, Dreher discloses that the pad has an asymmetric part (A) (see Annotated FIG. 1, below) configured to allow passage of a caliper stop (see FIG. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
319
551
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Dreher discloses that the asymmetric part is a beveled corner of the support plate (see FIG. 1, above).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giacomazza (US 2009/0145702) in view of Baumgartner et al. (US 2019/0203785) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamauchi (WO 2009/131248).
Regarding claim 8, Giacomazza does not disclose that the support plate is made of low-alloy carbon steel, containing less than 0.3% by weight of carbon, preferably less than 0.2%, and vanadium in an amount between 0.2 and 0.3% by weight.
Yamauchi teaches a low carbon steel for use in brakes (see Abstract) the low-alloy carbon steel containing less than 0.3% by weight of carbon, preferably less than 0.2%, and vanadium in an amount between 0.2 and 0.3% by weight (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to form the support plate of Giacomazza from the low carbon steel of Yamauchi to utilize a material that is known to have sufficient hardness for brake applications.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giacomazza (US 2009/0145702) in view of Baumgartner et al. (US 2019/0203785) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Narayanan V et al. (US 2012/0043168).
Regarding claim 11, Giacomazza does not disclose that the caliper includes:- two bushings connecting two jaws of the caliper; - two pads with lugs configured to cooperate with the bushings; and - a stop; the support plate has an asymmetric part configured to allow passage of the stop.
Narayanan V teaches a caliper (see Abstract) comprising - two bushings (31) connecting two jaws of the caliper (see FIG. 11; left and right jaws of caliper connected by bushings (31)); - two pads (10) with lugs (21) configured to cooperate with the bushings (see FIG. 11); and - a stop (see ¶ 0041, “pad locator abutment surfaces”); the support plate has an asymmetric part (21) (see claim 2, “one or more pad locators” – configuration with one pad locator (21) would be asymmetric) configured to allow passage of the stop (see ¶¶ 0035, 0037).
It would have been obvious to combine the two bushings and stop of Narayanan V with the caliper of Giacomazza to properly locate the brake pad within the caliper.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giacomazza (US 2009/0145702) in view of Baumgartner et al. (US 2019/0203785) and further in view of Mettrick et al. (US 2019/0011004).
Regarding independent claim 12, Giacomazza discloses a disc brake (see Abstract, FIG. 1) configured to receive a caliper (10) receiving a brake pad (130) for a disc brake caliper (see FIG. 5), comprising a support plate (134) with a rear face presenting a support zone (see e.g. ¶ 0029, “support zone” is the zone upon which the piston contacts the support plate, thereby creating the “piston force centroid axis 182”) and a front face receiving a friction material (136) with a friction zone (170) intended to engage with a brake disc in a friction direction (R) (see ¶ 0028), characterized in that the center of the support zone (182) is offset relative to the center of the friction zone (180), in a direction opposite to the friction direction (see FIG. 5; see also rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b), above – it is unclear what is meant by “a direction opposite to the friction direction,” but Figure 5 Giacomazza discloses that center of the support zone (182) is offset along the direction (R) from the center of the friction zone; just as FIG. 1 of the present application shows that the center of the support zone (12a) is offset along the direction (DF) from the center of the friction zone (14a)).
Giacomazza discloses that the offset value D is a function of the coefficient of friction and thickness (see ¶ 0029), but does not disclose the specific relationship such that 0.1µE ≤ D ≤ 2µE, where: - µ is the friction coefficient of the friction zone against the disc; and - E is the distance between the friction zone and the center of a mounting surface of the pad, measured orthogonally to the friction zone.
Baumgartner teaches a brake pad (see Abstract, FIGS. 7-10D), wherein a moment generated by a friction zone of a pad contacting a disc is calculated as Ms=Fk*µB*H (see ¶ 0113), where Fk is the applied force (see ¶ 0106), µB is the friction coefficient of the friction zone against the disc (see ¶ 0107), and H equals the distance between the friction zone and a center of the mounting surface of the pad (see ¶ 0089; FIG. 7) and that a moment generated by a selected offset is Mk=Fk(e+C/2), where e+C/2 is the distance between the friction zone and the center of a mounting surface of the pad, measured orthogonally to the friction zone (see ¶¶ 0109, 0110).
In view of Giacomazza’s stated purpose of reducing uneven wear via an offset between a center of a friction zone and a center of a support zone (see Abstract, ¶ 0031; FIG. 5), and further in view of Giacomazza’s statement of the offset being a function of pad thickness and a coefficient of friction (see ¶ 0029), one of ordinary skill would have recognized that Baumgartner teaches the equations that describe the function of Giacomazza’s brake pad. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that equation for the friction zone moment MS in Baumgartner describes the force that leads to uneven wear and further recognized that the compensation moment Mk is the moment that counteracts the friction zone moment to prevent uneven wear. Thus, the correction moment Mk to counteract the friction zone moment Ms would result in the equation Fk*µB*H = Fk(e+C/2). This results in the Offset (e+C/2) = µB*H. As such, it would have been obvious to set the offset of Giacomazza to be equal to µB*H to completely counteract the friction zone moment, thereby preventing uneven wear.
Giacomazza does not disclose that the disc brake further comprises a disc made of carburizing steel.
Mettrick teaches a disc made of carburizing steel (see ¶¶ 0059-0061, 0066).
It would have been obvious to form the disc of Giacomazza from carburizing steel as taught by Mettrick to provide a brake disk using known materials that are suitable for use as brake disks (see e.g. Mettrick, ¶ 0066).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
June 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights