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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26-Jun-2026 has been entered.
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 12 and 13 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 claim 12, the phrase “a brake caliper” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this is the same element as the previously recited “brake caliper.”
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “a sleeve-like portion” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this is the same element as the previously recited “bearing sleeve.” Furthermore, the addition of “like” to the word sleeve renders it unclear what structure is required to be considered “like” a sleeve (see e.g. MPEP 2173.05(b).III).
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “a brake caliper” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this is the same element as the previously recited “brake caliper.”
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “a bearing sleeve” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this is the same element as the previously recited “bearing sleeve.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected for failing to further limit independent claim 1, the claim from which it depends. All elements of claim 3 are previously recited in independent claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 5-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2020/0191211) in view of Smith et al. (US 2020/0156611).
Regarding independent claim 1, Suzuki discloses an actuator assembly for an electromechanical vehicle brake (see ¶ 0022, FIGS. 1-11), comprising: a brake caliper (16); a carrier assembly having a guide part (14) in which an actuating slide (50) for a brake pad is mounted so as to be linearly displaceable (see ¶ 0065), wherein the guide part is a component separate from the brake caliper (see ¶¶ 0003, 0061; FIGS. 1-6) and is a bearing sleeve (see FIG. 5, guide part (14) forms a bearing sleeve for piston (50)) which is received in the brake caliper (see FIGS. 1-5; ¶ 0061)
Suzuki does not disclose a frame part, wherein the guide part has a rotational locking geometry by which the guide part is rotationally fixedly received in the frame part by form fit; and the guide part is received in the frame part along a defined engagement region, the rotational locking geometry being provided on mutually engaging surfaces of the frame part and the guide part.
Smith teaches 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).
It would have been obvious to combine the electromechanical actuator of Smith (including the frame part and rotational locking geometry) with the device of Suzuki because Suzuki teaches that the brake disclosed therein is intended to be used with an electromechanical actuator (see e.g. Suzuki, ¶ 0022; Suzuki teaches that the brake is electromechanically actuated but does not explicitly disclose the structure of the electromechanical actuator). Furthermore, the electromechanical actuator of Smith provides the advantage of ensuring that the torque supported while the vehicle is parked may be grounded or supported into the housing of the brake caliper (see e.g. Smith, ¶ 0050).
Regarding claim 2, Smith teaches that the form-fit, rotationally fixed connection is a shaft-hub connection (see FIG. 4E).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki discloses that the actuator assembly (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-11) comprises the brake caliper (16), and the guide part (14) is a bearing sleeve which is received in the brake caliper (see FIGS. 3-6).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki discloses 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).
Regarding claim 6, Smith teaches that a fixing interface for an electric motor is formed on the frame part (see FIG. 2; ¶ 0040).
Regarding claim 7, Smith teaches that a gear unit (240) is formed on the frame part (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki discloses a spindle drive (51) on which the actuating slide (50) is mounted (see FIG. 5, ¶ 0065), such that a rotation of the spindle drive causes an axial displacement of the actuating slide (see FIG. 5, ¶ 0065). Smith teaches 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 9, Suzuki discloses that the actuating slide is guided rotationally fixedly in the guide part by means of a rotational locking element (58, 62).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki discloses an electromechanical vehicle brake (see ¶ 0022) and a brake disc which the actuator assembly can contact (see ¶ 0024). Suzuki in view of Smith teaches an actuator assembly according to Claim 1 (see FIG. 1)
Regarding claim 11, Smith teaches 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, Suzuki discloses that the actuator assembly comprises a brake caliper (16), and the guide part (14) is a sleeve-like portion of the brake caliper (see FIGS. 5, 6).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki discloses that the actuator assembly (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-11) comprises the brake caliper (16), and the guide part (14) is a bearing sleeve which is received in the brake caliper (see FIGS. 3-6).
Regarding claim 15, Smith teaches that a fixing interface for an electric motor is formed on the frame part (see FIG. 2; ¶ 0040).
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki discloses that the actuating slide is guided rotationally fixedly in the guide part by means of a rotational locking element (58, 62).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26-Jun-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant argues that “[t]his dual relationship – where the guide part is received in both the brake caliper and the frame part with rotational locking geometry on the frame part side – is not taught by either Smith or Suzuki, alone or in combination” (see Amendment, page 6). Suzuki, however, discloses a guide part disposed within the brake caliper (see FIGS. 5, 6) and Smith discloses a guide part received within a frame via rotational locking geometry (see FIGS. 4D, 4E). Smith teaches that the rotational locking geometry is located on the rear part of the guide part near the spindle (see FIGS. 4D, 4E). This location corresponds to the right-most surface of the guide part (14) of Suzuki (see FIG. 5). As such, the combination would result in the bearing part being located within both of the caliper and the frame part.
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
July 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights