Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/858,835

BRAKING PAD FOR VEHICLES, AND ASSEMBLING METHOD FOR MAKING SUCH A BRAKING PAD

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Oct 22, 2024
Examiner
KING, CURTIS J
Art Unit
2685
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Stellantis Europe S P A
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
542 granted / 798 resolved
+5.9% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
830
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.2%
-36.8% vs TC avg
§103
55.5%
+15.5% vs TC avg
§102
12.5%
-27.5% vs TC avg
§112
19.3%
-20.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 798 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 § 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 7-10 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. Claim 7 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, as the claims attempt to claim both a device and a process for using the device. Section 112 requires that the claims of a patent "particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention." 35 U.S.C. § 112 (2000). A claim is considered indefinite if it does not reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of its scope. Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Appropriate correction or further explanation is required. Claim 8 recites “An assembly process for making a braking pad for vehicles according to claim 1”. There is no antecedent basis for the limitation. It is unclear whether the braking pad of claim 8 is the same or different than the braking pad of claim 1. In addition, “an independent claim is a standalone claim that contains all the limitations necessary to define an invention.” Claims 8-10 are rejected due to their claim dependency. 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 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eden (Pub. No.: 2016/0305502 A1) in view of Gronowicz (Pat. No.: 6,302,241 B1). 1) In regard to claim 1, Eden discloses the claimed braking pad for vehicles (fig. 2: 10), comprising: a support backplate (fig. 2: 17 discloses as brake housing) suitable for connection to a braking member and having a first and a second face opposite to other, and a lateral edge between said first and second faces (fig. 2 shows the brake housing has a first and second face with a lateral edge between the faces); a block of first friction material (fig. 2: 12 discloses as a brake pad) coupled in a fixed position to said face (fig. 2 shows the brake pad is coupled to the brake housing); a sensor (fig. 2: 18) comprising a detection head engaging a hole made in said support backplate (fig. 2 shows sensor 18 has a detection head which goes in a hole of the brake pad); coupling means for retaining said detection head in a reference position that is fixed relative to said support backplate (fig. 2 shows the detection head is coupled to the support backplate); Eden does not explicitly disclose the coupling means comprise a plate retention member comprising an annular portion having an inner edge that is coaxial to said hole and is coupled to said detection head by friction and/or by interference coupling and/or by snap coupling, and at least one engagement portion which is part of one of said support backplate and said plate retention element and is engaged directly to the other of said support backplate and said plate retention element. However, Gronowicz discloses it has been known for a brake pad wear sensor to have a plate retention member comprising an annular portion having an inner edge that is coaxial to said hole and is coupled to said detection head by friction and/or by interference coupling and/or by snap coupling (fig. 1 shows the brake pad sensor has a retention plate 26 with a hole which couples the retention plate to the housing), and at least one engagement portion which is part of one of said support backplate and said plate retention element and is engaged directly to the other of said support backplate and said plate retention element (fig. 1 shows the screw 28 allows the retention plate to be engaged directly to the support plate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the brake pad of Eden to be mounted to the mounting plate with a retention plate member, as taught by Gronowicz. One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Eden as described above in order to support and securely fastened the sensor to the mounting plate. 2) In regard to claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Eden and Gronowicz disclose the braking pad according to claim 1, wherein said coupling means comprises two engagement portions (Eden fig. 3b shows multiple engagement holes). 3) In regard to claim 3 (dependent on claim 2), Eden and Gronowicz disclose the braking pad according to claim 2, wherein said engagement portions are diametrically opposite to each other with respect to said annular portion (Eden fig. 3b). 4) In regard to claim 7, claim 7 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-6 and 8-10 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 CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 EST. 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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. /CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 22, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 26, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 26, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602981
ACTION MONITORING SYSTEM AND ACTION MONITORING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597337
EVENT SENSING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592136
SELF-TESTING DETECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583564
SEAFARER SAFETY DEVICE, SEAFARER SAFETY SYSTEM, SEAFARER SAFETY PROGRAM, VESSEL ACTIVITY INFERENCE DEVICE, REPORT GENERATION ASSISTANCE SYSTEM, AND VESSEL ACTIVITY INFERENCE PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12572763
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONFIGURING RFID PRINTERS WITH RFID LABEL MEDIA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+29.9%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 798 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month