DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed December 22, 2025 has been received and considered.
In light of the new IDS filed December 3, 2025, a new grounds of rejection has been made as outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 35 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.
Regarding claim 35, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 20-22, 24-27 and 29-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,272,914 to Ciotti in view of European Patent No. EP 1332976 to Pacelli.
Regarding Claim 20, Ciotti discloses a protective cap 38 for guides of floating brake calipers 13, having most all the features of the instant invention including a cup-like body (see Figure 3) intended to be associated with a floating brake caliper 13 to close a sliding seat of a guide 34 of such a floating caliper 13, wherein the cup-like body comprises a bottom wall (see Figure 3 and the top of element 38) and a side wall (see Figure 3 and the side walls of element 38) which extends axially from the bottom wall and which peripherally delimits with its free edge, a mouth of the cup-like body (see Figure 3 and the opening of element 38 over the guide pin) in a position axially opposite the bottom wall, the side wall having a circular cross-section on a plane transversal to an axial direction (see Figure 3).
However, Ciotti does not disclose that the cup-like body is made of plastic material reinforced with glass fibers nor that the protective cap further comprises a gasket made of elastomeric material housed in the cup-like body at the bottom wall, the gasket being intended to be compressed between the cup-like body and the floating caliper when in use so as to seal the sliding seat of the guide.
Regarding the material of the cup-like body of the cap, Pacelli is relied upon merely for his teachings of a protective cap 42 for an airtight container having a cup-like body (see Figure 3) made of plastic material reinforced with glass fibers (see the abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the cup-like body of the protective cap of Ciotti to be made of plastic reinforced with glass fibers as taught by Pacelli as a matter of design preference dependent upon the desired strength and rigidity of the cap itself.
Regarding the gasket, Pacelli is again relied upon for his teachings of a cap 42 for an airtight container having a gasket 10 made of elastomeric material (see column 2 lines 25-40 of paragraph 0006) housed in the cup-like body (i.e., within the interior of cap 42) at a bottom wall 49, the gasket 10 being intended to be compressed between the cup-like body and another member when in use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the protective cap of Ciotti with a gasket as taught by Pacelli to seal the sliding seat of the guide to prevent any dirt and/or debris from penetrating into the guide causing damaging to the guide pin assembly of the caliper.
Regarding Claim 21, Pacelli further discloses that the plastic material is polyurethane (see paragraph 0006, column 2 lines 25-27 of Pacelli).
Regarding Claim 22, Ciotti, as modified, does not disclose that the glass fiber content is between 25% and 35% by weight of the cup-like body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the plastic material of the cup-like body of Ciotti, as modified to have a glass fiber content between 25% and 35% by weight as a matter of design preference dependent upon the desired strength and rigidity of the cap and its intended operating environment.
Regarding Claim 24, Ciotti, as modified, further disclose means for snap-fastening the cup-like body (i.e., the body of cap 38 of Ciotti) onto the floating caliper 13 (see Figure 2 and column 3 lines 23-26 of Ciotti, which appear to disclose cap 38 having means for engaging caliper 13 with a snap fit connection).
Regarding Claim 25, Ciotti, as modified, further disclose that the snap-fastening means consists of a plurality of teeth 53 which are made on an inner surface of the side wall 48 of the cup-like body (see Figure 3 of Pacelli) and project towards the inside of the cup-like body (see Figure 3 of Pacelli), each of the teeth 53 being defined by a ledge which extends along an arc of circumference of the side wall 48 (see Figure 3 and column 3 lines 9-20 of paragraph 0006 of Pacelli).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the snap-fitting means of Ciotti to include teeth as taught by Pacelli as a more effective means of securing the cap to the caliper. The teeth would provide a secure engagement between the two mating parts while also allowing for an easier separation of the two parts from one another.
Regarding Claim 26, Ciotti, as modified, further discloses that the teeth 53 are all positioned at the same height in an axial direction with respect to the bottom wall 49, the teeth 53 being distributed along the perimeter extension of the side wall 48 so as to be spaced evenly apart, the teeth 53 being three in number (see Figure 3 of Pacelli).
Regarding Claim 27, Ciotti, as modified, further discloses each tooth 53 is connected to the free edge (i.e., the outer lower edge of wall 48) of the side wall 48 by means of a chamfer portion, having an inclined chamfer surface which faces towards the inside of the cup-like body and converges towards the bottom wall 49 (see Figure 3 of Pacelli).
However, Ciotti, as modified, does not disclose that the inclined chamfer surface forms an angle between 28 and 32 degrees with respect to the axial direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the inclined chamfer surface of each tooth of Ciotti, as modified, to form an angle between 28 and 32 degrees as a matter of design preference dependent upon the desired location of each tooth, size of each tooth, etc.
Regarding Claim 29, Ciotti, as modified, further discloses that the gasket 10 consists of an O-ring (see Figure 5 of Pacelli).
Regarding Claim 30, Ciotti, as modified, further discloses the cup-like body comprises an annular seat to house the O-ring 10, the annular seat being made at the bottom wall 49 and being coaxial with side wall 48 (see Figures 1-3 and 5 and paragraph 0006 of Pacelli, Figure 5, in particular showing the annular seat).
Regarding Claim 31, Ciotti, as modified, further discloses that the annular seat consists of a cavity radially delimited between the side wall 48 and a tubular appendage 47, which extends from the bottom wall 49 coaxially with the side wall 48, the bottom wall 49 defining a bottom of the cavity (see Figure 3 of Pacelli).
Regarding Claim 32, Ciotti, as modified, further discloses that the tubular appendage 47 extends axially in height from the bottom wall 49 up to a height lower than that at which the teeth 53 are positioned so that there is a predefined distance in the axial direction between the teeth 53 and a free edge of the tubular appendage 47 (see Figure 3 of Pacelli).
Regarding Claim 33, Ciotti, as modified, further discloses that the annular seat has an inside diameter greater than an inside diameter of the O-ring 10 so that the O-ring is radially deformed when housed in the seat (see Figure 5 and paragraph 0006 of Pacelli).
Regarding Claim 34, Ciotti, as modified, further discloses that the O-ring 10 is sized in such a way that, once housed in the annular seat and radially deformed, the O-ring 10 extends axially beyond the free edge of the tubular appendage 47 unit it substantially reaches the teeth 53 so that when the cup-like body is associated with a caliper body during use, the O-ring 10 may be axially compressed (see Figures 3 and 5 of Pacelli).
Regarding Claim 35, Ciotti, as modified, does not disclose that the O-ring has a trapezoidal-shaped radial cross section when not deformed, wherein a smaller base of the trapezoidal cross section faces the inside of the O-ring and a larger base of the trapezoidal cross section faces the outside of the O-ring.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the O-ring of Ciotti, as modified, so that it has a trapezoidal-shaped radial cross section when not deformed, wherein a smaller base of the trapezoidal cross section faces the inside of the O-ring and a larger base of the trapezoidal cross section faces the outside of the O-ring as a matter of design preference dependent upon the desired size and shape of the O-ring within the assembly.
Regarding Claim 36, Ciotti, as modified, further discloses that the bottom wall of the cup-like body comprises a shell 26 which is coaxial with the side wall 34 and defines a chamber which extends axially beyond the bottom of the annular seat (see Figure 2 of Pacelli), the shell 26 having a transversal cross section not exceeding the transversal cross section of the tubular appendage 28 (see Figure 2 of Pacelli and paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claim 37, Ciotti, as modified, does not specifically disclose that the cup-like body is made by injection molding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the cup-like body of Ciotti, as modified, by injection molding as a matter of design preference dependent upon the desired strength and rigidity of the cap and any manufacturing constraints thereof.
Regarding Claim 38, Ciotti, as modified, further discloses a floating caliper 13 for a disc brake comprising at least one guide 34 inserted into a sliding seat in the floating caliper 13, a protective cap 38 associated with a portion of the caliper 13 delimiting the sliding seat, the cap 38 being placed so as to close the sliding seat (see Figures 1-4 of Ciotti), characterized in that the protective cap 38 is a protective cap according to Claim 20.
Regarding Claim 39, see Claim 20 above and further note that the cup-like body comprises a tubular appendage 47 which forms an inner diameter of the cup-like body, a bottom wall 49 which extends laterally from the tubular appendage 47, and a side wall 48 which extends axially from the bottom wall 49 forming an outer diameter of the cup-like body (see Figure 3 of Pacelli), wherein the tubular appendage 47, the bottom wall 49, and the side wall 48 form an annular seat (see Figure 5 of Pacelli), and wherein a gasket 10 is located laterally between the inner diameter and the outer diameter and is at least partially surrounded by the annular seat (see Figure 5 of Pacelli).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed December 22, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 20-22,24-27, and 29-38 under both 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103(a) using the Carrara et al reference have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly cited Ciotti and Pacelli references provided in the IDS filed December 3, 2025.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on December 3, 2025 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 PAMELA RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 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.
PAMELA RODRIGUEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/PAMELA RODRIGUEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 02/19/26