DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that DeMorais et al. fail to teach applicants claimed “pressure-distributing element at an end of the spindle nut”, arguing that the pressure-distributing element of DeMorais et al. is a separate brake piston.
In response to applicants’ arguments, the examiner points out that the claims do not recite that the pressure-distributing element is formed monolithically as part of the spindle nut; and that, as the claims presently stand, any element in close relation to the end of a spindle nut, and comprising a semi-annular pressure-distributing element facing the brake lining is interpreted to read on applicant’s claims. The piston (5) of DeMorais et al. is therefore interpreted to read on applicants claims.
Applicants argue that Osterlanger et al. fail to teach applicants claimed “pressure-distributing element at an end of the spindle nut”, arguing that the pressure-distributing element of Osterlanger et al. is not a separate element from the spindle nut, and is not close to the brake lining.
In response to applicants’ arguments, the examiner points out that the claims do not recite that the pressure-distributing element is formed separately from the spindle nut, nor do they recite that that pressure-distributing element is in direct contact with the brake lining, but merely disposed “close to the brake lining”. As the claims presently stand, any element in close relation to the end of a spindle nut and “close” to the brake lining, and comprising a semi-annular pressure-distributing element facing the brake lining, is interpreted to read on applicant’s claims. The element (11) of Osterlanger et al. is therefore interpreted to read on applicants claims.
Applicants argue that Zernickel et al. fail to teach applicants claimed “pressure-distributing element at an end of the spindle nut”, arguing that the pressure-distributing element of Zernickel et al. is not a separate element from the spindle nut.
In response to applicants’ arguments, the examiner points out that the claims do not recite that the pressure-distributing element is formed separately from the spindle nut. As the claims presently stand, any element in close relation to, or formed as part of, the end of a spindle nut and comprising a semi-annular pressure-distributing element facing the brake lining, is interpreted to read on applicant’s claims. The element (7) of Zernickel et al. is therefore interpreted to read on applicants claims.
Applicants argue that Dambacher et al. is not related to the art of ball-screw actuators specifically in a braking assembly.
In response to applicants’ arguments, the examiner again points out that Dambacher et al. is related to the art of ball-screw actuators. The reference is therefore interpreted to be relevant to the ball-screw actuator of Osterlanger et al. and/or Zernickel et al..
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 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeMorais et al. (US 2017/0023079).
In Re claims 1 and 15, DeMorais et al. disclose an actuator assembly for a vehicle brake, comprising: a brake rotor (par. 0003); brake lining (brake pads 6 and 7); a spindle (3); a spindle nut (4); a pressure distributing element (5) with an annular contact surface (115) that presses the brake pads into contact with the brake rotor.
In Re claims 2, 4, 16, and 18, DeMorais et al. disclose that the contact surface (115) and curved end (116) is a circle, ellipse, arch, ovoid, or other curved shape (par. 0022).
In Re claims 3 and 17, see frustoconical curved end (116).
In Re claims 5, 6, and 19 see central depression (centrally disposed cutout adjacent 116).
In Re claims 7 and 20, as best understood, the contact surface edge of the central depression (adjacent 116) has opposite inclination angles at opposing diametrical ends thereof (see fig. 3).
Claims 1-3, 9, 10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osterlanger et al. (US 2012/0079902).
In Re claims 1 and 15, Osterlanger et al. disclose an actuator assembly for a vehicle brake, comprising: a brake rotor (2); brake lining (brake pads 4 and 5); a spindle (28); a spindle nut (10); a pressure distributing element (11 or 14) with an annular contact surface (axial end) that is close to the brake pads to press them into contact with the brake rotor. The examiner notes that the pressure-distributing element can be part of the spindle nut or separately provided; the claims do not define this feature.
In Re claims 2 and 16, the contact surface is circular.
In Re claims 3 and 17, see conical guide surface (15, 16).
In Re claim 9, see axial bearing (25) and conical surface (35, 36).
In Re claim 10, the spindle is a ball-screw (7).
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zernickel et al. (DE 19944876).
In Re claims 1 and 15, Zernickel et al. disclose an actuator assembly for a vehicle brake (fig. 1), comprising: a brake rotor (6); brake lining (brake pads 4 and 5); a spindle (20); a spindle nut (16); a pressure distributing element (7) with an annular contact surface (axial end) that presses the brake pads into contact with the brake rotor.
In Re claims 2 and 16, the contact surface is circular.
In Re claims 3 and 17, the pressure distributing element (7) is outwardly flanged (see axial end) with a chamfered inner edge.
In Re claims 5 and 19, the center of the pressure distributing element (7) is hollow.
In Re claims 7 and 20, as best understood, the contact surface edge of the central hollow portion has opposite inclination angles at opposing diametrical ends thereof (see chamfered inner edge of the pressure distributing element 7).
In Re claim 8, the pressure distributing element (7) is formed as a single piece with the spindle nut (16).
In Re claim 10, the spindle is a ball-screw (see balls 18).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterlanger et al. (US 2012/0079902) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dambacher et al. (DE 102016104562 A1).
In Re claim 11, Osterlanger et al. fail to specifically disclose how to fill the ball-screw spindle drive.
Dambacher et al. is related to the art of ball-screw actuators. Dambacher et al. teach providing a spindle nut (12) of a ball-screw actuator (fig. 1) with a closeable side cut-out bore and adjacently located filling devices (see 17 and 18) for filling the ball-screw with balls (13). 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 modified the ball-screw of Osterlanger et al. to include a side cut-out, as taught by Dambacher et al., simply to allow for filling of the ball-screw with the necessary balls.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zernickel et al. (DE 19944876) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dambacher et al. (DE 102016104562 A1).
In Re claim 11, Zernickel et al. fail to specifically disclose how to fill the ball-screw spindle drive.
Dambacher et al. is related to the art of ball-screw actuators. Dambacher et al. teach providing a spindle nut (12) of a ball-screw actuator (fig. 1) with a closeable side cut-out bore and adjacently located filling devices (see 17 and 18) for filling the ball-screw with balls (13). 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 modified the ball-screw of Zernickel et al. to include a side cut-out, as taught by Dambacher et al., simply to allow for filling of the ball-screw with the necessary balls.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights