DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements have been received and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least a part of the first filter housing disposed inside the vehicle body and at least a part of the second filter housing disposed outside the vehicle body, as claimed in claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13,14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 it is unclear how and where “.. at least a part of the first filter housing disposed inside the vehicle body and at least a part of the second filter housing disposed outside the vehicle body”, is shown in the drawings. It is not clear how this would/could happen based upon what is shown in the existing drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1,15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hur 2024/0229875 .
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1 Hur shows in figures 1-5:
A caliper brake including a disc configured to be rotatable with a wheel and at least one brake pad, the caliper brake comprising: a caliper housing 100 wherein at least a part of the brake pad 110 is disposed in the caliper housing and the caliper housing covers at least a part of the disc; and a dust capturing device 200, 300 configured to capture dust from the brake pad, the dust capturing device including a filter housing 210,220, 230 disposed to cover at least a part of an outer circumferential surface of the disc and a filter module 300, 300’ coupled to the filter housing (see fig 4).
Regarding claim 15 note the plurality of filter modules at 300, 300’.
Regarding claim 16 note that the filters 320,330 may be ‘slid’ (at least to some degree) into the filter covers 310 (i.e. housing) thereby providing a ‘slide-coupling’, as broadly claimed.
Regarding claim 17 note the ‘cages’, as broadly claimed, at 310, 310’. The filter member is at 330.
(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.
Claim(s) 1,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Woerz et al. U.S. 2023/0035373.
Regarding claim 1 Woerz ‘373 shows in figures 1,2:
A caliper brake 14 including a disc 12 configured to be rotatable with a wheel and at least one brake pad, the caliper brake comprising: a caliper housing 14 wherein at least a part of the brake pad (not labeled but inherent) is disposed in the caliper housing and the caliper housing 14 covers at least a part of the disc 12; and a dust capturing device 18 configured to capture dust from the brake pad, the dust capturing device including a filter housing 28,30 disposed to cover at least a part of an outer circumferential surface of the disc and a filter module 42 coupled to the filter housing 28,30 (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 16, as broadly claimed, note the slide coupling at 58,60 in figures 8,9.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woerz in view of Raab U.S. 2007/0000740.
Regarding claim 2 Woerz lacks showing providing a snap-coupling between the filter module 42 and the filter housing 28,30 in figure 2. However note the connection mechanism in the area of 64.
The reference to Raab also shows a filter arrangement 12,34 for a brake caliper 14 but indicates in para 0018 that the extension/filter arrangement 12 “… may be bolted on, snapped on, adhered on (e.g., as with a high temperature adhesive tape) or the equivalent, the illustrated exemplary embodiment of FIG. 1 shows a snap on configuration,…”.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used some type of well known (equivalent) snap-on connection for the filter module 42 in Woerz to the filter housing 28,30, instead of the connection shown, since such a connection may make disassembly or replacement of the filter module easier.
Claim(s) 3,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woerz ‘373/Raab as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Woerz U.S. 2022/0397168 .
Regarding claims 3 Woerz ‘373 lacks specifically showing a slide coupling and a cage provided for the filter module 42.
Woerz ‘168 (same inventor) shows a similar dust filter arrangement to that of Woerz ‘373 but shows a cage at 124 in figures 7,9 for the filter 118,125.
It would have been obvious to have provided a ‘cage’, or extra support, for the filter module 42 in Woerz ‘373 –essentially turning it into a cartridge like element—since this may make less likely to deform during its lifetime and thereby make replacement easier.
Regarding claim 7 note Woerz ‘168 describes the cage 124 also as a ‘grid’. It would have been obvious to have provided holes in the ‘grid’ (although presumably inherent) for the dissipation of heat.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woerz in view of Zheng et al. WO 2022/104778 (See U.S. 12,385,533 for a translation).
Regarding claim 12 while Woerz lacks specifically showing a ‘steering knuckle’ it is well known that the majority of automobiles have this arrangement for support of the brake and wheel assemblies.
The reference to Zheng is relied upon to provide this general teaching in the area of 400. See the discussion regarding this assembly.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious the device of Woerz likely includes a steering knuckle as part of the suspension arrangement for the reasons above.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woerz in view of Woerz et al. U.S. 2024/0288040.
Regarding claim 15 Woerz ‘373 lacks showing the filter module 42 comprises a plurality of filer modules.
Woerz et al. ‘040 (same inventor) indicates in figure 5 that the filter module 11,12 may comprise a ‘plurality’ of filter modules 11,12 (i.e. at least two components) as broadly claimed.
It would have been obvious to have provided another filter element/module in addition to the one at 42 in Woerz ‘373, as taught by Woerz et al. ‘040, simply as a means of catching smaller (or other types of) dust particles unable to be picked up by the first module 42.
Claim(s) 16,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woerz in view of Woerz et al. U.S. 2022/0397168.
Regarding claims 16,17 Woerz ‘373 lacks specifically showing a slide coupling and a cage provided for the filter module 42.
Woerz ‘168 (same inventor) shows a similar dust filter arrangement to that of Woerz ‘373 but shows a cage at 124 in figures 7,9 for the filter 118,125.
It would have been obvious to have provided a ‘cage’, or extra support, for the filter module 42 in Woerz ‘373 –essentially turning it into a cartridge like element—since this may make less likely to deform during its lifetime and thereby make replacement easier.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6,8-11,13,14,18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
7/24/26
Prosecution Insights