DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
2. Pursuant to the amendment filed July 30, 2026, claims 2-20 are pending in the application. The applicant has cancelled claim 1. The applicant has amended claims 1, 4-8, 10, 15, and 20.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, and 19 of copending Application No. 19/081,508 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 6, and 19 of Application No. 19/081,508 disclose, teach, and suggest all the limitations of claim 17 of the current application.
Claims 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 20 because claims 18-20 depend from claim 20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 2, 7, and 10 and claims 3-9 and 11-16, which depend from one of claims 2 and 10, are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 2 and claims 3-6, 8, 9, 15, and 16, which depend from claim 2, the prior art does not disclose, teach, or suggest a method for determining a wear of a disc brake that is for braking a rotor, as recited by the claims, wherein:
sensing liner movement of the caliper housing relative to the carrier
includes sensing a first magnet;
sensing rotary movement of the adjuster includes sensing a second magnet.
Kramer (US 2022/0349451 A1) discloses a method for determining wear of a disc brake that is for braking a rotor, including sensing linear movement of the caliper and sensing rotary movement of the caliper. Kramer does not disclose, teach, or suggest:
sensing liner movement of the caliper housing relative to the carrier
includes sensing a first magnet;
sensing rotary movement of the adjuster includes sensing a second magnet.
Ruiz et al. (US 2020/0309217 A1) discloses a sensor assembly for determining an amount of wear on a brake pad in a vehicle disc brake and a method of assembling the sensor assembly to the disc brake, wherein rotation of an adjuster shaft generates a signal indicative of the amount of wear on brake pads. Ruiz does not disclose, teach, or suggest:
sensing liner movement of the caliper housing relative to the carrier
includes sensing a first magnet;
sensing rotary movement of the adjuster includes sensing a second magnet.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not disclose, teach, or suggest a method for determining a wear of a disc brake that is for braking a rotor, as recited by the claims, comprising:
sensing, with a sensor coupled to the caliper housing, a magnet coupled to the carrier; and
determining the operational slide position based on the sensing of the magnet and when the disc brake clamps the outer brake pad onto the rotor.
Kramer (US 2022/0349451 A1) discloses a method for determining wear of a disc brake that is for braking a rotor, including sensing linear movement of the caliper and sensing rotary movement of the caliper. Kramer does not disclose, teach, or suggest:
sensing, with a sensor coupled to the caliper housing, a magnet coupled to the carrier; and
determining the operational slide position based on the sensing of the magnet and when the disc brake clamps the outer brake pad onto the rotor.
Ruiz et al. (US 2020/0309217 A1) discloses a sensor assembly for determining an amount of wear on a brake pad in a vehicle disc brake and a method of assembling the sensor assembly to the disc brake, wherein rotation of an adjuster shaft generates a signal indicative of the amount of wear on brake pads. Ruiz does not disclose, teach, or suggest:
sensing, with a sensor coupled to the caliper housing, a magnet coupled to the carrier; and
determining the operational slide position based on the sensing of the magnet and when the disc brake clamps the outer brake pad onto the rotor.
Regarding claim 10 and claims 11-14, which depend from claim 10, the prior art does not disclose, teach, or suggest a method for determining a wear of a disc brake that is for braking a rotor, as recited by the claims, wherein:
determining inner brake pad wear based on the rotary movement of the adjuster includes determining the difference between a linear tappet distance of the adjuster and the outer brake pad wear.
Kramer (US 2022/0349451 A1) discloses a method for determining wear of a disc brake that is for braking a rotor, including sensing linear movement of the caliper and sensing rotary movement of the caliper. Kramer does not disclose, teach, or suggest:
determining inner brake pad wear based on the rotary movement of the adjuster includes determining the difference between a linear tappet distance of the adjuster and the outer brake pad wear.
Ruiz et al. (US 2020/0309217 A1) discloses a sensor assembly for determining an amount of wear on a brake pad in a vehicle disc brake and a method of assembling the sensor assembly to the disc brake, wherein rotation of an adjuster shaft generates a signal indicative of the amount of wear on brake pads. Ruiz does not disclose, teach, or suggest:
determining inner brake pad wear based on the rotary movement of the adjuster includes determining the difference between a linear tappet distance of the adjuster and the outer brake pad wear.
sensing a second magnet to determine rotary movement of the adjuster.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
5. 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 JOHN F MORTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 ET.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/JOHN F MORTELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
