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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 6, 9, 12-13 have been amended, claims 2-4, 10, 14-16 have been cancelled, and new claim 19 has been added. Therefore, claims 1, 5-9, 11-13 and 17-19 are now pending in the application.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 11-13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schack et al. (US – 2005/0247528 A1) and further in view of Olschewski et al. (US – 6,554, 109 B1).
As per claim 1, Schack discloses Actuation Unit For An Electromechanically-actuated Disc Brake comprising:
a spindle (17, 20, 21, [0020], Fig: 1), which is driven in rotation by an electric motor (10, [0020], Fig: 1), and a brake piston in a form of a spindle nut (16, [0020], Fig: 1), which surrounds the spindle and is configured to press against a brake lining (Fig: 1), the spindle being axially supported on an axial bearing (26, [0024], Fig: 1), wherein a spindle drive has a core diameter of a thread of the brake piston for axial displaceability of the brake piston (Attached figure and Fig: 1), , the spindle having on a brake lining side a shaft portion (17, Fig: 1) which is thickened in cross-section (Attached figure and Fig: 1) and having a transmission thread of the spindle drive on an outer lateral surface (Attached figure and Fig: 1), and a drive shaft prolongation of comparatively smaller cross-section (21, Fig: 1), and a transition portion (20, Fig: 1) is formed between the shaft portion and the drive shaft prolongation (Fig: 1), the axial bearing (26) abutting a contact face provided by the transition portion (Fig: 1).
Schack discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose the core diameter of the thread being larger than an outside diameter of the axial bearing.
Olschewski discloses Actuator Having A Central Support, And Brake Caliper comprising:
the core diameter of the thread being (Attached figure and Fig: 5) larger than an outside diameter of the axial bearing (Attached figure and Fig: 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Actuation Unit For An Electromechanically-actuated Disc Brake of the hack to make the core diameter of the thread being larger than an outside diameter of the axial bearing as taught by Olschewski in order to provide control the actuator load and thus the brake force and stable positioning or centering the actuator, and provide an accurate and repeatable displacement in response to control signals.
PNG
media_image1.png
684
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 6, Schack discloses wherein the axial bearing (26, Fig: 1) is supported on a base of a brake housing (15, 12, Fig: 1).
As per claim 7, Schack discloses wherein an axial bearing washer (40, Fig: 2a) is arranged axially between the axial bearing and the base of the brake housing (Fig: 1, 2a) and is pressed in the brake housing by frictional engagement and/or interlocking engagement in such a manner that it is secured against rotation ([0024], Fig: 1).
As per claim 11, Schack discloses wherein the brake piston (16) has on a brake lining side an end wall (Attached figure and Fig: 1) which presses against the brake lining when the brake is operated ([0020] and [0023], Attached figure and Fig: 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
628
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As per claim 12, Schack discloses wherein the spindle drive has a ball screw (18, 19, [0023], Fig: 1).
As per claim 13, Schack discloses wherein further including brake linings (4, 5, Fig: 1) which can be moved towards one another, and [[an]] the electric motor (10) which is coupled in a torque- transmitting manner with the spindle ([0020], Fig: 1).
As per claim 19, Schack discloses wherein a cup- shaped bushing (12, Fig: 1) accommodates and mounts the brake piston (16) in the brake housing (15, Fig: 1).
Claim(s) 5, 8-9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schack et al. (US – 2005/0247528 A1) as modified by Olschewski et al. (US – 6,554, 109 B1) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Schmidt et al. (US – 4,721,190).
As per claim 5, Schack as modified by Olschewski discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein there is provided a brake housing which has a base and which accommodates the brake piston in its interior.
Schmidt discloses Mechanical Actuation Device For Spot-type Disc Brakes comprising:
wherein there is provided a brake housing (13, 40, Fig: 1) which has a base (40, Fig: 1) and which accommodates the brake piston (17, 20) in its interior (Attached figure and Fig: 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Actuation Unit For An Electromechanically-actuated Disc Brake of the Schack to provide a brake housing which has a base and which accommodates the brake piston in its interior as taught by Schmidt in order to stuck due to corrosion jam and smooth operation of the brake and reduce part.
As per claim 8, Schmidt further discloses wherein a rotation lock (28, Fig: 1) is provided between the brake housing (13, 40) and the brake piston (17, Fig: 1) accommodated in a linearly displaceable manner therein, which rotation lock permits a linear displacement of the brake piston (17) but prevents the brake piston from rotating relative to the brake housing (A bolt 28 projecting radially inward from leg 13 engages in a longitudinal slot 29 of actuating nut 20 and, thus, secures actuating nut 20 against rotation without inhibiting its axial slidability in the normal actuating range, Col: 5, Ln: 5-120, Fig: 1).
As per claim 9, Schmidt further discloses wherein a gasket (48, Fig: 1) is provided on a brake lining side between the brake piston (17, 20, Fig: 1) and the brake housing (13, 40, Fig: 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Actuation Unit For An Electromechanically-actuated Disc Brake of the Schack to include the gasket is provided on a brake lining side between the brake piston and the brake housing as taught by Schmidt in order to stuck due to corrosion jam and smooth operation of the brake and reduce part.
As per claim 18, Schack discloses wherein the spindle drive has a ball screw (18, 19, [0023], Fig: 1).
As per claim 17, Schmidt further discloses wherein a rotation lock (28, Fig: 1) is provided between the brake housing and the brake piston accommodated in a linearly displaceable manner therein, which rotation lock permits a linear displacement of the brake piston but prevents the brake piston from rotating relative to the brake housing (A bolt 28 projecting radially inward from leg 13 engages in a longitudinal slot 29 of actuating nut 20 and, thus, secures actuating nut 20 against rotation without inhibiting its axial slidability in the normal actuating range, Col: 5, Ln: 5-10, Fig: 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARK, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5-9, 11-13 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C.103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schack et al. (US – 2005/0247528 A1) and further in view of Olschewski et al. (US – 6,554, 109 B1) and Schmidt et al. (US – 4,721,190).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN M AUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5792. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:30 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.
/SAN M AUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights