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 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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 recites “a third groove” and “a fourth groove”. The limitations are unclear since no “first groove” or “second groove” are claimed.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (DE 102022114421 A1).
Re claim 1, Suzuki et al. disclose a brake device comprising: a pad carrier (2);a brake pad (4a, 4b); a pad moving unit (6a, 6b) connected to the brake pad and configured to linearly move the brake pad; a caliper body (3) having a cylindrical portion for the pad moving unit to be seated therein; a connecting pin (27a, 27b) coupling the caliper body to the pad carrier so that the caliper body moves along the connecting pin; and a motor-gear assembly (7) connected to the pad moving unit and configured to transmit power of a motor (40) , wherein the pad moving unit (6a, 6b) includes a conversion assembly for converting a rotational motion into a linear motion, and a piston (5a, 5b) connected to one end of the conversion assembly, wherein the piston is positioned outside the cylindrical portion, and wherein the motor-gear assembly is fixed to the pad carrier with respect to the caliper body. (Fig. 6)
Re claim 2, Suzuki et al. disclose wherein the conversion assembly includes: a bolt screw (29a, 29b) rotating around an axis; and a moving nut (30a, 30b) connected to the bolt screw, wherein the moving nut moves by the rotation of the bolt screw, wherein one end of the bolt screw protrudes to the outside of the caliper body (3), wherein the one end of the bolt screw (72, 73) is connected to a gear (64d, 64e), and wherein the gear is rotated by the motor (40).
Re claim 3, Suzuki et al. disclose wherein the bolt screw (29a, 29b) is capable to move a predetermined distance in a direction of the axis, wherein the bolt screw and the gear (64d, 64e) are capable of being engaged with each other and rotating in a section equal to or greater than the predetermined distance.
Re claim 4, Suzuki et al. disclose wherein the bolt screw (29a/72, 29b/73) has a first shape capable of being engaged with the gear (64d, 64e), wherein the gear has a second shape capable of being engaged with the first shape, and wherein the first shape or the second shape extends by a distance equal to or greater than the predetermined distance in the axial direction. (Fig. 6)
Re claim 5, Suzuki et al. disclose wherein the second shape of the gear (64d, 64e) is a hole capable of receiving the one end of the bolt screw (29a/72, 29b/73) therein, wherein the brake device further includes a gear casing (45) for accommodating the gear and the motor therein, and wherein the gear casing is fixed with respect to the motor and the gear assembly. (Fig. 5-6)
Claims 11, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu (CN113775678 A)
Re claim 11, Hsu ‘224 discloses a brake device comprising: a pad moving unit (60, 70) for linearly moving a brake pad (11); and a caliper body (30) having a cylindrical portion for the pad moving unit to be seated therein, wherein a portion or an entirety of the pad moving unit is able to be inserted into the cylindrical portion, and a space of the cylindrical portion is opened in a direction toward the brake pad, wherein the pad moving unit is configured to operate in connection with a motor (91) which is spaced apart from the caliper body, and wherein the caliper body includes a passage (34) extending through an edge of the space of the cylindrical portion and connected to the outside of the caliper body. (Fig. 1)
Re claim 12, Hsu ‘224 discloses wherein the pad moving unit includes: a conversion assembly (60, 70) for converting a rotational motion into a linear motion; and a piston (50) connected to one end of the conversion assembly, wherein the conversion assembly is seated inside the cylindrical portion, and wherein the conversion assembly includes: a bolt screw (60) rotating around an axis; and a moving nut (70) coupled to a screw thread of the bolt screw, and wherein the moving nut moves along a direction of the cylindrical portion by the rotation of the bolt screw.
Re claim 16, Hsu ‘224 discloses wherein gas or liquid is transferred from the outside of the caliper body to the cylindrical portion via the passage (34), and wherein the brake device further comprises a cylinder connection port positioned in the passage and having a flow channel defined therein leading from the outside of the caliper body to the cylindrical portion. (Fig. 1)
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (CN 113775678)
Re claim 14, Hsu teaches wherein a surface of the one end of the conversion assembly (70) and the inner surface of the piston (50) are spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance. Hsu does not teach wherein the predetermined distance is equal to or smaller than 2 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to provide a predetermined distance to separate and engage the piston from the conversion assembly as desired since applicant has not disclosed that 2 mm solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would operate at multiple distances.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-10, 15, 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.
Claim 19 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Re claim 11, Applicant argues that limitations from canceled claim 13 have been incorporated into claim 11. While the Examiner acknowledges that claim 11 has been amended, the limitation was not recited in canceled claim 13 and is anticipated as stated above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
MTWFebruary 18, 2026