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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 15-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAHLE (US – 2014/0209418 A1) and further in view of BECK et al. (US – 2018/0023646 A1).
Claim(s) 11, 15-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PAHLE (US – 2014/0209418 A1).
As per claim 11, PAHLE discloses Disc Brake, In Particular For A Commercial Vehicle, And Brake Pad For Disc Brake comprising:
a brake caliper (1, Fig: 1-3) which straddles a brake disc (3, Fig: 1-3) and, relative to the brake disc (Fig: 1-3), is held so as to be axially displaceable on guide rods connected to a vehicle-proximal brake support (FIGS. 1-3 illustrate, in each case, a portion of a disc brake, in particular for a commercial vehicle, with a brake caliper 1 engaging over a brake disc 3 and designed as a sliding caliper disc brake with two brake pad 4, 5. The brake pads 4,5 can be pressed against the brake disc 3 on both sides and have, in each case, a lining carrier plate 6 and a friction lining 7 fastened thereon, [0028], Fig: 1-3);
a brake lining (7, Fig: 1-5) which, during braking, is proximal to an action of force and mounted in the brake support (Fig: 1-3), the brake lining comprising a lining support (6, Fig: 1-5) plate and a friction lining (7, Fig: 1-5) fastened thereto;
a brake application device by which the brake lining is pressable against the brake disc (To brake a vehicle, brake pads are pressed with their friction linings against a brake disc on both sides by means of a pneumatically or electromotively driven brake application device, [0003], Fig: 1-5),
wherein the brake plunger has an actuating spindle and a compression piece that contacts the lining support plate (A brake piston 8 engages the brake pad 4 arranged on the application side and has an adjusting spindle 9 and a thrust piece 10. The thrust piece 10 is held rotatably on the adjusting spindle 9 and bears against the lining carrier plate 6 of the brake pad 4. The brake piston 8 is an integral part of a brake application device, by which the brake piston 8 can be pressed against the brake pad 4 and, consequently, against the brake disc 3 in the event of braking, [0029], Fig: 6), and
wherein the lining support plate (6, Fig: 6) has an at least partially convex design (Fig: 6) in a convex contact region with the brake plunger (the lining carrier plate 6 has spherical cap shaped recesses 12, as can be seen in FIG. 5 as an exemplary embodiment of the brake pad 5, two recesses 12 being provided here which are arranged at a distance from one another and in which elevations 11, shaped as a crowned protuberance, of a rear wall of the brake caliper 1 are seated, [00312], Fig: 5, 6).
PHALE discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose the brake application device comprising a pivotable brake lever and at least one brake plunger.
BECK discloses Brake Application Mechanism Of A Disc Brake comprising:
the brake application device comprising a pivotable brake lever (14, The brake application mechanism 8 has a brake ram 4 which, arranged centrally, can be pressed against the brake application-side brake pad 3 in an axially displaceable manner via a brake lever 14, [0031], Fig: 1) and at least one brake plunger (7, the brake ram 4 consists of an actuating spindle 6, to which an adjusting device 5 for compensating for an air play is connected, and a threaded sleeve 7 which engages with an internal thread into an external thread of the actuating spindle 6, [0032], Fig: 1, 2A-2B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Disc Brake, In Particular For A Commercial Vehicle, And Brake Pad For Disc Brake of the PAHLE to make the brake application device comprising a pivotable brake lever and at least one brake plunger as taught by BECK in order to provide a frictionally locking, integrally joined or positively locking connection.
As per claim 15, PAHLE discloses wherein the convex contact region is circular, oval or elliptic (12, Fig: 5).
As per claim 16, PAHLE discloses wherein the convex contact region centrically has a planar face.
As per claim 20, PAHLE discloses Disc Brake, In Particular For A Commercial Vehicle, And Brake Pad For Disc Brake comprising:
a lining support plate (6, Fig: 1-5); and
a friction lining (7, Fig: 1-5) fastened to the lining support plate (Fig: 1-5),
wherein the lining support plate (6), on a rear side thereof facing away from the friction lining (Fig: 5), has a contact region (12, Fig: 5) for a brake plunger of the disc brake 8, 9, fig: 5-6), and wherein the contact region is at least partially of a convex design (Fig: 5-6).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAHLE (US – 2014/0209418 A1) as modified by BECK et al. (US – 2018/0023646 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of JAEGER (DE – 102014017684 A1, from IDS, Examiner disclosed Englis machined translation for claim rejection reference).
As per claim 12, PAHLE discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a pressure point of the brake plunger on the convex contact region is positioned so as to be spaced apart from a longitudinal axis of the brake plunger.
JAEGER discloses Brake Shoe For Stamp Disk Brake comprising:
wherein a pressure point of the brake plunger on the convex contact region (57a, 57b, Fig: 6a) is positioned so as to be spaced apart from a longitudinal axis of the brake plunger ([0057] – [0058], Fig: 5a – 6b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Disc Brake, In Particular For A Commercial Vehicle, And Brake Pad For Disc Brake of the PAHLE as modified by BECK to make the pressure point of the brake plunger on the convex contact region is positioned so as to be spaced apart from a longitudinal axis of the brake plunger as taught by JAEGER in order to achieve a good braking effect, without compromising the stability of the brakes, it comes on the basis of the stamping execution on the clamping side on a uniform distribution of surface pressure.
As per claim 13, PAHLE further discloses wherein the pressure point is positioned in an egress direction so as to be spaced apart from the longitudinal axis of the brake plunger (57a, 57b, Fig: 6a, lead to pressure points in the outlet direction at the distance from the longitudinal axis of the brake piston, Fig: 5a, ([0057] – [0058], Fig: 5a – 6b).
As per claim 14, PAHLE further discloses wherein the convex contact region is arcuate at least in a rotating direction of the brake disc (arc shape distribution of 57a, 57b, Fig: 6a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 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.
Prior art and teaching reference fails to disclose wherein the convex contact region, on an entry side, has a circular shape with a small radius, and, on an exit side, has a circular path with a larger radius (Claim 17), wherein the convex contact region is designed in the shape of a strip and aligned at an angle in relation to a transverse axis (Claim 18) and wherein the convex contact region is aligned in a direction of a lower side of the lining support plate so as to taper at an angle in relation to a transverse axis (Claim 19).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A: Tarandek et al. (US – 2021/0310531 A1)
B: Gerber et al. (US – 2021/0301892 A1),
C: Beck et al. (US – 2018/0023646 A1), and
D: Brandl Christian (DE – 102014111228 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN M AUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5792. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:30 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.
/SAN M AUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
