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 Objection
Claim 3 is objected to because an period is included in line 1. A claim may only contain a single period at the end of the claim (see MPEP 608.01(m)). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5-13, 15 and 19 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.
Regarding independent claim 1, the phrase “the brake caliper” lacks antecedent basis, rendering it unclear which element is being referenced.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “a brake caliper” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this is the same element as the previously recited “brake caliper.”
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 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2020/0156611) in view of Suzuki (US 2020/0191211).
Regarding independent claim 1, Smith discloses an actuator assembly (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-4E) for an electromechanical vehicle brake (see Abstract), comprising: a carrier assembly (100) having a frame part (210), and a guide part (110) in which an actuating slide for a brake pad is mounted so as to be linearly displaceable (see ¶ 0059), wherein the guide part has a rotational locking geometry (416) by means of which the guide part is rotationally fixedly received in the frame part by form fit (see ¶ 0050), wherein the guide part is received in the frame part along a defined engagement region (see FIGS. 4D, 4E; ¶ 0050), the rotational locking geometry being provided on mutually engaging surfaces of the frame part and the guide part (see FIGS. 4D, 4E; ¶ 0050).
Smith does not disclose that the actuator assembly comprises a brake caliper, and the guide part is a component separate from the brake caliper. Rather, Smith discloses that the guide part is formed integrally with the caliper (see e.g. FIGS. 1, 4E; ¶ 0061).
Suzuki teaches an actuator assembly (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-11) comprising a brake caliper (16), and a guide part (14) that is a component separate from the brake caliper (see FIGS. 3-6).
It would have been obvious to form the guide part and brake caliper of Smith from two separate components, as taught by Suzuki, to allow for sub-assembly of piston components prior to installation to the caliper housing and to allow for easier access and repair (see e.g. Suzuki, ¶ 0005).
Regarding claim 2, Smith discloses that the form-fit, rotationally fixed connection is a shaft-hub connection (see FIG. 4E).
Regarding claim 3, Smith does not disclose that the actuator assembly comprises a brake caliper, and the guide part is a bearing sleeve which is received in the brake caliper. Rather, Smith discloses that the bearing sleeve is formed integrally with the caliper (see e.g. FIGS. 1, 4E).
Suzuki teaches an actuator assembly (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-11) comprising a brake caliper (16), and a guide part (14) that is a bearing sleeve which is received in the brake caliper (see FIGS. 3-6).
It would have been obvious to form the guide part and brake caliper of Smith from two separate components, as taught by Suzuki, to allow for sub-assembly of piston components prior to installation to the caliper housing and to allow for easier access and repair (see e.g. Suzuki, ¶ 0005).
Regarding claim 5, Smith does not disclose that a space for a brake disc is present in the brake caliper, wherein the guide part is open towards the space so that the actuating slide can be moved into the space.
Suzuki teaches an actuator assembly (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-11) comprising a brake caliper (16) comprising a space (34) for a brake disc (see FIGS. 1, 5), wherein a guide part (14) is open towards the space so that an actuating slide (50) can be moved into the space (see FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to combine the configuration of Suzuki with the device of Smith because Suzuki discloses the well-known structure of a brake caliper that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand is present in Smith, but not shown in the drawings.
Regarding claim 6, Smith discloses that a fixing interface for an electric motor is formed on the frame part (see FIG. 2; ¶ 0040).
Regarding claim 7, Smith discloses that a gear unit (240) is formed on the frame part (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Smith discloses that the actuator assembly comprises a gear unit (240) driving a spindle drive on which the actuating slide is mounted (see FIG. 4E, ¶ 0059), such that a rotation of the spindle drive causes an axial displacement of the actuating slide (see FIG. 4E, ¶ 0059).
Regarding claim 10, Smith discloses an electromechanical vehicle brake with an actuator assembly according to Claim 1 (see FIG. 1) and a brake disc which the actuator assembly can contact (see ¶ 0002; one of ordinary skill would understand that “a brake assembly” for a caliper would include a disc).
Regarding claim 11, Smith discloses that the shaft-hub connection is a splined shaft connection (see FIG. 4E, projections (413) and recesses (416) form a keyed connection that forms a “spline;” see also https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spline, “a key that is fixed to one of two connected mechanical parts and fits into a keyway in the other”).
Regarding claim 11, Smith alternatively does not disclose that the shaft-hub connection is a splined shaft connection.
Suzuki teaches that non-rotational engagement features can include one or more keys, slots, ribs, channels, notches, tabs (see ¶ 0037).
It would have been obvious to replace the rotational locking geometry of Smith with one or more keys, slots, ribs, channels, notches or tabs such that a splined connection is formed to position and/or mate the guide part within the opening of the frame part (see e.g. Suzuki, ¶ 0037) with an increased force resisting rotation).
Regarding claim 12, Smith discloses that the actuator assembly comprises a brake caliper (110), and the guide part is a sleeve-like portion of the brake caliper (see FIGS. 1, 4E).
Regarding claim 13, Smith does not disclose that the actuator assembly comprises a brake caliper, and the guide part is a bearing sleeve which is received in the brake caliper. Rather, Smith discloses that the bearing sleeve is formed integrally with the caliper (see e.g. FIGS. 1, 4E).
Suzuki teaches an actuator assembly (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-11) comprising a brake caliper (16), and a guide part (14) that is a bearing sleeve which is received in the brake caliper (see FIGS. 3-6).
It would have been obvious to form the guide part and brake caliper of Smith from two separate components, as taught by Suzuki, to allow for sub-assembly of piston components prior to installation to the caliper housing and to allow for easier access and repair (see e.g. Suzuki, ¶ 0005).
Regarding claim 15, Smith discloses that a fixing interface for an electric motor is formed on the frame part (see FIG. 2; ¶ 0040).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2020/0156611) and Suzuki (US 2020/0191211), as applied to claims 1 and 3, above, and further in view of Olschewski et al. (US 6,554,109).
Regarding claim 9, Smith does not disclose that the actuating slide is guided rotationally fixedly in the guide part by means of a rotational locking element.
Olschewski teaches an actuator assembly (see Abstract, FIG. 1) comprising an actuating slide (17) that is guided rotationally fixedly in the guide part (8) by means of a rotational locking element (20) (see FIG. 1; col. 2, line 67 to col. 3, line 2).
It would have been obvious to combine the rotational locking element of Olschewski with the device of Smith to prevent rotation of the guide part, thereby ensuring linear displacement when the spindle rotates.
Regarding claim 19, Smith does not disclose that the actuating slide is guided rotationally fixedly in the guide part by means of a rotational locking element.
Olschewski teaches an actuator assembly (see Abstract, FIG. 1) comprising an actuating slide (17) that is guided rotationally fixedly in the guide part (8) by means of a rotational locking element (20) (see FIG. 1; col. 2, line 67 to col. 3, line 2).
It would have been obvious to combine the rotational locking element of Olschewski with the device of Smith to prevent rotation of the guide part, thereby ensuring linear displacement when the spindle rotates.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22-Jan-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Regarding the rejection of the subject matter of claim 1 over Smith in view of Suzuki, Applicant argues that “Suzuki does not disclose anything about an actuating slide in a spindle system” or “a guide part separate from the caliper” and that “Applicant’s guide part is fundamental different than Suzuki’s removable piston and serve different purposes in different systems” (see Amendment, page 6). Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, however, Suzuki discloses an actuating slide (50) in a spindle system (52) (see FIG. 5), wherein the guide part (14) is separate from the caliper (12) (see FIG. 5, ¶ 0061; “[t]he housing 12 includes a cylinder body 14 assembled to a caliper body 16”). As such, the caliper, the guide part and the actuating slide of Suzuki serves the same purpose in the same type of system as the present application.
Regarding the rejection of claims 9 and 19 in view of Olschewski, Applicant argues that “Olschewski teaches an anti-rotation pin for hydraulic pistons in ball-screw arrangements” and that “Applicant’s claim 9 recites rotational locking of the actuating slide within the guide part” (see Amendment, pate 6), and that therefore, “[t]here is no motivation to import Olschewski’s pin into Smith’s architecture” (see Amendment, page 7). Applicant’s disclosed actuating mechanism is a “recirculating ball spindle” (see ¶ 0063) that drives a “piston-like spindle nut” (see ¶ 0066). Similarly, Smith discloses use of a “ball screw type brake assembly” (see Smith, ¶ 0059). As such, the ball-screw arrangement for driving a piston in Olschewski is analogous to both the present application and the device disclosed in Smith.
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 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
February 23, 2026