DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 10 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The examiner first points out that applicant’s claim language regarding the “first/second/third top edge” is generally broad, not concretely defining a specific edge or location of said edge in relation to the adjacent or surrounding structure. Every surface is understood to include edges. The examiner further points out that “above/below” are generally broad as well, as the disc brake caliper may be mounted in any position relative to the vehicle and ground, and not necessarily such that the longitudinal axis of the brake pad is positioned horizontally.
Applicants argue that with respect to claims 1 and 13 that Takeo et al. fail to teach a second top edge positioned blow a first top edge.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner points out that they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The examiner points to fig. 3, which shows that the first top edge (the corner of the carrier, adjacent 5b1 above 2a2 and 2b2) is located above a second top edge (see corner of the backing plate (see corner of 5b and 5e). As best understood, this feature encompasses applicant’s claim limitations.
Regarding claim 2, applicants argue that Takeo et al. fail to teach a second top edge positioned below a third top edge, and that fig. 5 is presented as a “relative disc brake”, and is not part of the taught invention.
In response to applicants’ arguments, the examiner understands fig. 5 to be a comparative example, but it is still included as part of the disclosure and prior art. The examiner then points out that the third top edge (14b1 and associated horizontal dotted line) is disposed above a second top edge (see top corner of 15b) in fig. 5.
Regarding claim 7, 14, and 19, applicants argue that Takeo et al. fail to teach a chamfered corner.
In response to applicants’ arguments, the examiner points out that the chamfered corner is recited as being located between a top surface and the second corner, but isn’t positively claimed as being connected to either edge/surface. The examiner then points out that the backing plate (4) has chamfered/sloped edges (see sloped cutout portions) between the contact surface (corner of 5e) and a top surface (centrally located 5 in fig. 3).
In response to applicants’ arguments against Kramer, and that the disclosed widths are “not teachings of industry standard brake pad dimensions”, the examiner points out that this argument is not a persuasive reasoning for not employing such a feature, and that Kramer positively discloses applicants’ claimed width features, and is of analogous and relevant art.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 4, 5, 16, and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of these claims has been withdrawn.
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 –
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 12-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeo et al. (US 2007/0017756).
In Re claim 1, Takeo et al. disclose a disc brake system (1), comprising: a carrier (2) comprising a leading pad support (2a) and a trailing pad support (2b) defining a pad receiving opening therebetween, wherein the trailing pad support has a first side (2b2) having a first width (see fig. 8) and defining a carrier contact surface (2b2) having a top edge (see top corner of 2b2); a brake pad comprising: a backing plate (5) having a second width (see fig. 8) and a second side defining a backing plate contact surface (see 5e) and a second top edge (see top corner of 5e); and a friction material (4) supported on the backing plate having a third width (see fig. 8) and a third top edge (see 4b1), wherein the brake pad is disposed in the pad receiving opening (see fig. 8), wherein at least a portion of the carrier contact surface abuts at least a portion of the backing plate contact surface, and wherein the second top edge is positioned below the first top edge and overlies the carrier contact surface (see figs. 3-7 and 9). Additionally, with reference to fig. 5 (understood to be a comparative example, but still part of the disclosure), Takeo et al. shows a disc brake system (1) wherein the brake pad backing plate top edge (see corner opposite 15b) is located below a carrier (2) top edge (see edge opposite 2a2) and overlies the contact surface (see contact between the backing plate and the carrier). The examiner additionally notes that the terms “trailing” and “leading” are conditional of the direction of travel of the vehicle, and are therefore not concrete.
In Re claim 2, see third top edge (see top of arcuate friction surface 14b1 and associated horizontal dotted line) and second top edge (see top corner of 15b) in fig. 5.
In Re claims 7, 12, and 19, see the backing plate (4) has chamfered/sloped edges (see sloped cutout portions) between the contact surface (corner of 5e) and a top surface (centrally located 5 in fig. 3).
In Re claim 8, Takeo et al. disclose a brake pad (4, 5), comprising: a backing plate (5) having a first side defining a backing plate contact surface (see 5e) and a width (see fig. 8) first top edge (see top corner of 5e); and a friction material (4) supported on the backing plate, wherein the friction material has a second side having a second width (see fig. 8) and a second top edge (see 4b1); wherein the first top edge is positioned below the second top edge (see fig. 5).
In Re claim 13, the disc brake system apparatus of Takeo et al., as previously discussed, performs the claimed method steps of actuating a disc brake system. The examiner further points out that the second top edge (see top corner of 5e) is positioned below the first top edge (see top corner of 2b2) and overlies the carrier contact surface (see figs. 3-7 and 9).
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.
Claims 6, 11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeo et al. (US 2007/0017756).
In Re claims 6, 11, and 18, Takeo et al. is silent with regard to the material of the friction material. However, the examiner points out that copper has been effectively banned by federal EPA and state governments in brake friction materials because it is highly toxic to aquatic life and washes off roads into streams, rivers, and bays (see EPA’s Copper-Free Brake Initiative website: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/copper-free-brake-initiative ; and California and Washington State’s “Better Brakes Law” https://dtsc.ca.gov/scp/limiting-copper-in-brake-pads). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the friction material of a copper-free material, simply to comply with strict near-zero EPA regulations, and because it is a known toxic material to road-side ecosystems.
In Re claim 20, Takeo et al. further discloses planar contact surfaces (see push bearing portions 5b and 5e), but is silent with respect to an area of these surfaces. The examiner points out that the disc brake system can be of any practical size to fit any manner of vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the disc brake system of Takeo et al. to be of any functional size, including such a size such that the contact surfaces have a surface area of at least 675mm^2, as a matter of engineering design choice, so as to be appropriately sized for a vehicle. The examiner notes that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a mere change in size or discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 and 2144.05).
Claims 3, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Takeo et al. (US 2007/0017756), or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takeo et al. (US 2007/0017756) in view of Kramer (US 2022/0349451).
In Re claims 3, 9, and 14, Takeo et al. appear to show applicants claimed 40% feature (see widths of 5 and 4 in fig. 8), but fail to specifically disclose that the backing plate is 40% the thickness of the friction material.
Assuming arguendo, that Takeo et al. fail to teach the claimed 40% ratio, Kramer is related to the art of friction brake pads (see 14 and 16 in figs. 1 and 2), and teaches employing a 9mm thick backing plate and 21mm thickness of the friction member (43% ratio; see fig. 5 Table after par. 0033) as a well-known industry reasonable standard brake pad thickness. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have manufactured the backing plate and friction member of Takeo et al. to be 9mm and 21mm thick, respectively, as taught by Kramer, as it was an appropriate thickness to provide adequate braking longevity, strength, and braking heat dissipation, while minimizing excess material, cost, and weight.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeo et al. (US 2007/0017756) as applied to claims 9 and 14 above, and further in view of Kramer (US 2022/0349451).
In Re claims 10 and 15, Takeo et al. is silent with respect to an exact thickness of the backing plate.
Kramer is related to the art of friction brake pads (see 14 and 16 in figs. 1 and 2), and teaches that 9mm was a well-known industry reasonable standard backing plate thickness (see fig. 5 Table after par. 0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have manufactured the backing plate of Takeo et al. to be 9mm in thickness, as taught by Kramer, as it was an appropriate thickness to provide adequate strength and braking heat dissipation, while minimizing excess material, cost, and weight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 16, and 17 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
