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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 16-Dec-2025 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas (DE 10 2006 033240) in view of Hellerman Tyton GMBH (DE 20 2007 013 238) (machine translation attached) and further in view of Shirai (WO 2015/015857) (machine translation attached).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lucas discloses a brake caliper for a disk brake (see machine translation, ¶ 0001) comprising: a supporting structure (2) having a bridge (3) and at least one bridge finger (4), wherein the at least one bridge finger has a brake lining side (see FIGS. 1-3; side of fingers opposite faceplate (8)), an outer side (see FIGS. 1-3; side of fingers facing faceplate (8)) and a bore (6), wherein the bore is introduced into the outer side and has a bore axis and a bore wall (see FIGS. 1-3, 11, 12), a faceplate (8) having a peg (9), which projects into the bore and has a non-threaded peg circumferential surface (see FIGS. 6, 7), a sleeve (7), which has a sleeve body (16) and is arranged between the bore wall and the peg circumferential surface (see FIG. 13), wherein the sleeve has a spring arm (13), which is bent outwardly in the radial direction away from the sleeve body (see FIG. 11).
Lucas does not disclose a profiling recessed into the bore wall, wherein profiling is designed in such a way that the outwardly bent spring arm can latch into the profiling at various points of the profiling in an axial direction of the bore axis.
Hellerman Tyton teaches a fastening device (see machine translation, ¶ 0001) comprising a sleeve (1) and a bore having a profiling recessed into the bore wall (see ¶ 0036, “a bore with internal thread), wherein profiling is designed in such a way that an outwardly bent spring arm (15) can latch into the profiling at various points of the profiling in an axial direction of the bore axis (see ¶ 0036, “a surface into which the locking elements 15 can engage [with] . . . an internal thread”), and a peg which projects into the bore and is either threaded or non-threaded (see ¶ 0008, “a threaded bolt or a smooth bolt”).
It would have been obvious to combine the threaded profile of the bore with the bore of Lucas to provide means for positively locking the sleeve within the bore, thereby increasing the retaining force of the sleeve in the bore.
Lucas does not disclose that the peg comprises at least one circumferential groove spaced from an end of the peg wherein the sleeve is fixed axially on the peg in a positive-locking manner by the at least one circumferential groove.
Shirai teaches a fastening device (see Abstract, FIG. 1) comprising a sleeve (20), an a peg (10) comprising at least one circumferential groove (11) (see FIGS. 1(a), 1(b)) spaced from an end of the peg (see FIG. 3) wherein the sleeve is fixed axially on the peg in a positive-locking manner by the at least one circumferential groove (see FIGS. 3(b), 3(d)).
It would have been obvious to combine the circumferential groove of Shirai with the peg of Lucas to provide a locking recess that positively engages with the sleeve, thereby increasing the retaining force between the peg and the sleeve.
Regarding claim 2, Lucas discloses that the sleeve has a sleeve longitudinal axis (see FIGS. 8, 9), wherein, in a no-load state, a bending angle of the outwardly bent spring arm relative to the sleeve longitudinal axis is less than 90° (see machine translation, ¶ 0030), and wherein the bending angle of the outwardly bent spring arm decreases when the sleeve is inserted into the bore (see FIG. 13).
Regarding claim 3, Hellerman Tyton teaches that in an engaged state, there is a positive connection between the sleeve and the profiling (see ¶ 0036), at least counter to the insertion direction of the peg and of the sleeve into the bore (see ¶ 0036).
Regarding claim 4, Lucas discloses that the faceplate has a visible side and a contact side (see FIGS. 1-3), wherein the peg is arranged on the contact side (see FIGS. 1-4) and the faceplate is resting with its contact side against the outer side of the bridge finger (see FIGS. 1-4). Hellerman Tyton teaches that the profiling is arranged such that its longitudinal extent, in the axial direction of the bore axis, is that the outwardly bent spring arm is latched in the profiling (see ¶ 0036).
Regarding claim 5, Hellerman Tyton teaches that the profiling comprises an internal thread (see machine translation, ¶ 0036) and wherein a thread flight or thread flights of the internal thread provide the various locations at which the outwardly bent spring arm can latch in (see ¶ 0036).
Regarding claim 6, Shirai discloses that there is a frictional and/or a positive connection between the peg and the sleeve (see FIGS. 3b, 3d).
Regarding claim 8, Lucas discloses that the sleeve comprises a spring arm (14) bent radially inwardly away from the sleeve body (see FIGS. 8-10), wherein, in a no-load state, a bending angle of the inwardly bent spring arm relative to a sleeve longitudinal axis is less than 90° (see machine translation, ¶ 0030). Shirai teaches that the inwardly bent spring arm engages in the circumferential groove (see FIGS. 3b, 3d).
Regarding claim 10, Shirai teaches that the sleeve is fixed axially on the peg by fitting the sleeve body into the circumferential groove (see FIGS. 3b, 3d).
Regarding claim 11, Lucas discloses that the bending angle of the outwardly bent spring arm relative to the sleeve longitudinal axis is less than 60° (see machine translation, ¶ 0030).
Regarding claim 12, Hellerman Tyton teaches that in an engaged state, there is a positive connection between the sleeve and the profiling (see ¶ 0036), at least counter to the insertion direction of the peg and of the sleeve into the bore (see ¶ 0036).
Regarding claim 13, Lucas discloses that the bending angle of the outwardly bent spring arm relative to the sleeve longitudinal axis is less than 60° (see machine translation, ¶ 0030).
Regarding claim 14, Lucas discloses that the faceplate has a visible side and a contact side (see FIGS. 1-3), wherein the peg is arranged on the contact side (see FIGS. 1-4) and the faceplate is resting with its contact side against the outer side of the bridge finger (see FIGS. 1-4). Hellerman Tyton teaches that the profiling is arranged such that its longitudinal extent, in the axial direction of the bore axis, is that the outwardly bent spring arm is latched in the profiling (see ¶ 0036).
Regarding claim 15, Hellerman Tyton teaches that the profiling comprises an internal thread (see machine translation, ¶ 0036) and wherein a thread flight or thread flights of the internal thread provide the various locations at which the outwardly bent spring arm can latch in (see ¶ 0036).
Regarding claim 16, Shirai discloses that there is a frictional and/or a positive connection between the peg and the sleeve (see FIGS. 3b, 3d).
Regarding claim 19, Lucas discloses a brake caliper for a disk brake (see machine translation, ¶ 0001) comprising: a supporting structure (2) having a bridge (3) and at least one bridge finger (4), wherein the at least one bridge finger has a brake lining side (see FIGS. 1-3; side of fingers opposite faceplate (8)), an outer side (see FIGS. 1-3; side of fingers facing faceplate (8)) and a bore (6), wherein the bore is introduced into the outer side and has a bore axis and a bore wall (see FIGS. 1-3, 11, 12), a faceplate (8) having a peg (9), which projects into the bore and has a non-threaded peg circumferential surface (see FIGS. 6, 7), a sleeve (7), which has a sleeve body (16) and is arranged between the bore wall and the peg circumferential surface (see FIG. 13), wherein the sleeve has a spring arm (13), which is bent outwardly in the radial direction away from the sleeve body (see FIG. 11).
Lucas does not disclose a profiling recessed into the bore wall, wherein profiling is designed in such a way that the outwardly bent spring arm can latch into the profiling at various points of the profiling in an axial direction of the bore axis.
Hellerman Tyton teaches a fastening device (see machine translation, ¶ 0001) comprising a sleeve (1) and a bore having a profiling recessed into the bore wall (see ¶ 0036, “a bore with internal thread), wherein profiling is designed in such a way that an outwardly bent spring arm (15) can latch into the profiling at various points of the profiling in an axial direction of the bore axis (see ¶ 0036, “a surface into which the locking elements 15 can engage [with] . . . an internal thread”), and a peg which projects into the bore and is either threaded or non-threaded (see ¶ 0008, “a threaded bolt or a smooth bolt”).
It would have been obvious to combine the threaded profile of the bore with the bore of Lucas to provide means for positively locking the sleeve within the bore, thereby increasing the retaining force of the sleeve in the bore.
Lucas does not disclose that the peg comprises at least one continuous circumferential groove spaced from an end of the peg wherein the sleeve is fixed axially on the peg in a positive-locking manner by direct engagement of the sleeve with the at least one circumferential groove, such that the groove provides axial retention without rotational or threaded engagement.
Shirai teaches a fastening device (see Abstract, FIG. 1) comprising a sleeve (20), an a peg (10) comprising at least one continuous circumferential groove (11) (see FIGS. 1(a), 1(b)) spaced from an end of the peg (see FIG. 3) wherein the sleeve is fixed axially on the peg in a positive-locking manner by direct engagement of the sleeve with the at least one circumferential groove (see FIGS. 3(b), 3(d)), such that the groove provides axial retention without rotational or threaded engagement (see FIGS. 3(b), 3(d)).
It would have been obvious to combine the circumferential groove of Shirai with the peg of Lucas to provide a locking recess that positively engages with the sleeve, thereby increasing the retaining force between the peg and the sleeve.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 17 and 18 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 NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
June 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights