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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of forming a housing, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16th June 2026.
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 11 and 19 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 11, the limitation “intersection between the second portion and the bulkhead” is recited. It is unclear what the structure the “intersection” is intended to refer to because the previous Claim 10, which Claim 11 is dependent on, establishes the second portion as comprising the bulkhead. The figures and specification fail to rectify this understanding. For purposes of examination the intersection is interpreted as between the “open wall” and “bulkhead” of the second portion.
Regarding Claim 19, the preamble of the claim recites “the method recited in claim 1. Claim 1 is a structural claim and the method Claim 15 was not elected in the response to the restriction requirement in Applicants Arguments, Filed 16th June 2026. For purposes of examination Claim 19’s preamble will be interpreted as reading “the frame recited in claim 1”.
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 1-3, 6-7, 10-11, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Narula et. al. (US 2016/0076614 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Narula discloses a frame for an actuator assembly of a vehicle brake having a housing enclosing the frame, a gear stage, and a motor for delivering torque to the gear stage, comprising: a base (90) having a first interface (see [0077]) for connecting to the gear stage (60) and a second interface (see [0076]) for connecting to the motor (25), wherein projections (95) extend outward from the first interface for receiving fasteners (69) to secure the base (90) directly to a caliper housing (14) and transfer loads from the motor (25) to the caliper housing (14) during braking operations (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Narula discloses wherein the projections (95) are formed as one piece with the base (90) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Narula discloses wherein the projections (95) extend away from one another (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Narula discloses a housing for an actuator assembly of a vehicle brake having a frame for receiving a gear stage and a motor for delivering torque to the gear stage, comprising: a first portion (14) for receiving the frame (92), the gear stage (60), and the motor (25); and a separate second portion (93) secured to the first portion (14) for enclosing the frame (92), the gear stage (60), and the motor (25) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Narula discloses wherein the first portion (14) and the second portion (93) include cooperating structure (48, 97) for receiving outwardly extending projections (95) on the frame (92) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Narula discloses wherein the second portion (93) comprises an open wall (A) (see Annotated Fig. 2 below) and a bulkhead formed (B) as one piece with the wall (A) and closing the interior thereof for enclosing the frame (92), the gear stage (60), and the motor (52) (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
468
231
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding Claim 11, Narula discloses wherein the intersection between the second portion (93) and the bulkhead (B) (see Annotated Fig. 2 above) is free of potting (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Narula discloses wherein the second portion (93) includes a wall (A) (see Annotated Fig. 2 above) and projections (97) extending outward from the wall (A) for being secured to the frame (92) of the actuator assembly bearing the gear stage (60) and the motor (25) (see Fig. 2, Annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding Claim 19, Narula discloses wherein the projections (95) transfer loads on the frame (92) from the motor (25) and the gear unit (60) to the caliper housing (14) during braking operations (see Fig. 2).
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narula (US 2016/0076614 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Bourlon (US 2015/0330467 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Narula discloses the frame recited in Claim 1.
Narula does not explicitly disclose wherein the projections are diametrically opposed from one another about an axis centered on the first interface.
Bourlon teaches a frame for an actuator assembly of a vehicle brake wherein projections (X) (see Annotated Fig. 3A below) extend outward from the first interface (Y) for receiving fasteners, wherein the projections (X) are diametrically opposed from one another about an axis centered on the first interface (Y) (see Fig. 3A, Annotated Fig. 3A below).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Bourlon with the frame of Narula in order to reduce the number of fasteners from 3 to 2, thereby making the invention cheaper and lighter and faster to assemble due to requiring 1 less bolt. Upon making the modification, Bourlon teaches placing the projections evenly distributed about the gear stage, so the 2 projections should also be evenly distributed about the gear stage as suggested by Narula in order to maintain uniform securing forces around the gear stage, keeping the assembly stable and reducing the risk of alignment issues with the gear stage. When placing the projections in this manner, the resultant structure results in the two projections being diametrically opposed as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
561
751
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3A
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narula (US 2016/0076614 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Farmer (US 7021415 B2).
Regarding Claim 5, Narula discloses the framed recited in Claim 1.
Narula does not explicitly disclose wherein the base in formed from metal.
Farmer teaches a frame (312) for an actuator assembly of a vehicle brake wherein the base is formed from metal (see 6: 54-58).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Farmer with the frame of Narula in order to assist with noise reduction and provide mechanical strength for supporting the motor and gear state (see US 7021415 B2 [Farmer]; 6: 54-58, 7: 36-42).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narula (US 2016/0076614 A1) as applied to Claim 6 above, in view of Song (US 2020/0049215 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Narula teaches the housing recited in Claim 6.
Narula does not explicitly teach wherein the first portion and the second portion are fused along an interface to seal the interface.
Song teaches a housing for an actuator assembly wherein a first portion and a second portion are fused along an interface to seal the interface (see [0056]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Song with the housing of Narula in order to seal and prevent contaminants from entering the housing in an easy manner (see US 20200049215 A1 [Song]; [0056]).
Regarding Claim 9, Narula modified by Song teaches wherein the first portion and the second portion are welded along an interface to seal the interface (see US 20200049215 A1 [Song]; [0056])
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narula (US 2016/0076614 A1) as applied to Claim 6 above, in view of Zhang et. al. (WO 2023/097511 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Narula discloses the housing recited in Claim 7 wherein the second portion (93) is attached to a control assembly (65) (see Fig. 2).
Narula does not explicitly disclose wherein the second portion is fused along an interface with a control assembly for controlling operation of the motor.
Zhang teaches a housing for an actuator wherein a second portion (140) is fused along an interface with a control assembly (180) for controlling operation of the motor (see Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0074]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention, to combine the teaching of Zhang with the housing of Narula in order to protect all the internal electronic components (see WO 2023097511 A1 [Zhang]; [0074]).
Regarding Claim 13, Narula modified by Zhang teaches wherein the second portion (140) and the control assembly (180) are welded along an interface to seal the interface (see WO 2023097511 A1 [Zhang]; Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0074]).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hoshi (US 20050064980 A1) discloses a housing for an actuator assembly having a frame for receiving a gear stage and a motor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights