1 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments, filed 3/09/2026, with respect to the rejection of cancelled claim 6 (limitations now included in amended Claim 1, see Applicant Arguments ) under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Misunou ( US 10202108 B2 ). Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments, filed 9 th March 2026 , with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 10 3 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues drainage opening 11 is arranged in a Cylinder Cover 7 rather than a simulator housing because the cylinder cover does not contain a piston bore ( see Applicants Arguments 9 th March 2026). MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. The BRI of the limitation “simulator housing” recited initially in Claim 3 and then again in Claim 8 and Claim 11 includes the Cylinder Cover 7 as part of the “simulator housing” ( see DE 102017209618 A1 [ Hansmann ]; Fig. 1) . Additionally, Cylinder Cover 7 does include a piston bore formed between Cylinder 3 and the Cylinder Cover 7 wherein the piston 4 operationally travels through into the bore ( see DE 102017209618 A1 [ Hansmann ]; Fig. 1) . Also, it should be noted , amended Claim 1’s definition of simulator housing merely requires the piston to be “at least partially received” within the piston bore ( see Amended Claim 1). Therefore, Applicants Arguments regarding the rejection of claim 11 have not been found persuasive. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1-2, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Misunou ( US 10202108 B2 ) . Regarding Claim 1, Misunou discloses a brake device (1) for a hydraulic vehicle brake system, comprising: at least one simulator unit (5) for generating a counterforce which acts counter to an actuating force and which is fed back to an actuating member (20) of the brake device (1), the simulator unit (5) having at least one hydraulically actuated simulator piston (51), which is axially displaceable in a piston bore (54), and the simulator unit (5) also having at least one sealing element (511) for sealing off the simulator piston in the piston bore, wherein the sealing element (511) is fastened to the simulator piston (51), and slides on a lateral surface of the piston bore (54) when the simulator piston (51) is actuated (see Fig. 9, Abstract, 10: 4-34), wherein the piston bore (54) is formed in a separate simulator housing (50) which is fastened to a brake device housing (40) and which at least partially receives the simulator piston (5) (see Fig. 5, Fig. 9, 20: 7-39), and wherein at least one drainage opening ( see 8: 2-7, 10: 28-30, 13: 1-3) extends through a wall of the simulator housing ( see Fig. 5 (58), Fig. 9 , Examiner notes the drainage opening cannot be seen from Fig. 9 but Misunou’s specification details its location within 50d as cited, above , Fig. 9 is referenced for context of the referenced simulator system) . Regarding Claim 2, Misunou discloses wherein the simulator piston (51), at least along part of its displacement travel, mechanically acts indirectly or directly on an elastomer element (531) and causes an elastic deformation of the elastomer element (531) (see Fig. 9, 10: 35-64). Regarding Claim 7, Misunou disclose s wherein the drainage opening ( see 8: 2-7, 10: 28-30, 13: 1-3, Fig. 5 (58), Fig. 9 ) is arranged axially in a region between an actuated end position of the sealing element (511) and the elastomer element (531) (see Fig. 9). Regarding Claim 8, Misunou discloses wherein the drainage opening ( see 8: 2-7, 10: 28-30, 13: 1-3, Fig. 5 (58), Fig. 9) opens out of the simulator housing (50) outwardly into a separate collecting chamber (3) which is hydraulically sealingly isolated from the surroundings of the brake device (1) (see Fig. 5 (58, 580), Fig. 5, Fig. 9). Regarding Claim 9, Misunou discloses wherein the collecting chamber (3) is isolated by a separate cover (3a) for another, further component of the brake device (see Fig. 5, Fig. 9). Regarding Claim 10, Misunou discloses wherein the collecting chamber (3) is isolated by an isolating element (71) that acts between the simulator housing and the brake device housing (see Fig. 5). 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 . Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misunou (US 10,202,108 B2) as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Weh et. al. (DE 102019210797 A1) Regarding Claim 4, Misunou discloses the brake device as claimed in claim 3. Misunou does not disclose the simulator housing being cup-shaped, thin-walled form with a substantially constant wall thickness and being made from deep-drawn sheet-metal. Weh teaches a simulator housing of cup-shaped (15), thin-walled form with a substantially constant wall thickness, and in particular is formed as a deep-drawn part from sheet-metal material (see Fig. 1, [0005], [0022]). It would have been obvious to combine the cup-shaped, thin-walled, deep-drawn sheet metal simulator housing of Weh with the brake device and simulator of Misunou in order to increase manufacturability of the simulator housing. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misunou (US 10,202,108 B2) as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Dolmaya et. al. (DE 102019203308 A1). Regarding Claim 5, Misunou discloses the brake device as claimed in claim 3. Misunou does not disclose the simulator housing being fastened by plastic deformation of part of the brake device housing. Dolmaya teaches the fastening of a simulator housing (7) by plastic deformation of part of the brake device housing (3) (see Fig. 2, [0017]). It would have been obvious to combine the plastic deformation attachment of the simulator housing of Dolmaya with the brake device and simulator of Misunou in order to increase manufacturability of the simulator housing. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misunou (US 10,202,108 B2) as applied to Claim 1 and 8, above, in view of Hansmann et. al. (DE 102017209618 A1). Regarding Claim 11, Misunou discloses the brake device as claimed in claim 8. Misunou does the disclose the collecting chamber radially externally surrounding the simulator housing at least in a region in which the drainage opening opens out. Hansmann teaches a simulator with a collecting chamber (12) radially externally surrounds the simulator housing ( 2, 7 ) at least in a region in which the drainage opening (11) opens out (see Fig. 1, [0018]). It would have been obvious to combine the collecting chamber radially surrounding the simulator housing of Hansmann with the brake device and simulator of Misunou in order to allow dynamic hysteresis with pressure regulation (see DE 102017209618 A1 [ Hansmann ]; [0016-0018]). Claim 12-13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misunou (US 10,202,108 B2) as applied to Claim 1 and 2, above, in view of Erviti et. al. (US 20200377067 A1). Regarding Claim 12, Misunou discloses the brake device as claimed in claim 2. Misunou does not disclose at least one thrust piece arranged between the simulator piston and the elastomer element wherein at least part of the thrust piece bears against the element at all times. Erviti teaches a pedal simulation device wherein at least one thrust piece (60) is arranged between the simulator piston (44) and the elastomer element (54) and is configured to introduce forces from the simulator piston (44) into the elastomer element (54), and wherein at least part of the thrust piece (60), bears against the elastomer element at all times (see Fig. 2, [0093]). It would have been obvious to combine the pedal simulation device teaching of utilizing a thrust piece between a simulation piston and an elastomer element of Erviri with the brake device and simulator of Misunou in order to improve the reliability and accuracy of the pedal simulation device (see US 20200377067 A1 [ Erviti ]; [0007-0008]). Regarding Claim 13, Erviti teaches a pedal simulation device wherein at least on spring element (56) is arranged between the simulator piston (44) and the thrust piece (60) (see Fig. 2). Claim 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misunou (US 10,202,108 B2) as applied to Claim 1 and 2, above, and as modified by Erviti et. al (US 20200377067 A1) in claims 12 and 13, above, further in view of Schepp et. al. (US 20160160892 A1). Regarding Claim 14, Misunou modified by Erviti teaches the brake device as claimed in claim 12. Misunou modified by Erviti appears to teach, but does not explicitly teach, the thrust piece being thin-walled formed with a substantially constant wall thickness. Schepp teaches a piston-cylinder device for hydraulic vehicle braking systems wherein the thrust piece (56) is of thin-walled formed with a substantially constant wall thickness (see Fig. 2, [0008]). It would have been obvious to combine the thin-walled formed thrust piece of Schepp with the brake device and simulator of Misunou modified by Erviti in order to increase the manufacturability of the thrust piece (see US 20160160892 A1 [ Schepp ]; [0008]). Regarding Claim 15, Schepp teaches a piston-cylinder device for hydraulic vehicle braking systems wherein the thrust piece (56) is formed from sheet-metal material (see [0008]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Shea Irvin whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9952 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Robert Siconolfi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /S.W.I./ Examiner, Art Unit 3616 /Robert A. Siconolfi/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616