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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 09-Feb-2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 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 2, the phrase “at the first contracted position, the sleeve is creased at the first wall portion, and the sleeve is not creased at the remaining wall portions; at a second contracted position, the sleeve is creased at the first wall portion and at the second wall portion and the sleeve is not creased at the remaining wall portion or portions; and at the ultimate contracted position, the sleeve is creased at any of the wall portions” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the “ultimate contracted position” is the same as, includes or overlaps with the previously recited first contracted position and/or second contracted position. For example, the ultimate contracted position is defined as the sleeve being “creased at any of the wall portions” but the claim previously defines the first and second contracted positions as including creases at wall portions. It is suggested that this phrase be amended to --the ultimate contacted position, the sleeve is creased at all of the wall portions--.
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, 8-10, 13, 14, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmidt (GB 2120330).
Regarding independent claim 1, Schmidt discloses a caliper guide assembly (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2) comprising: a guide pin (12); a caliper (15) defining a guide bore (13) arranged to receive the guide pin and permit relative sliding thereof (see page 2, lines 75-96); a sleeve (17) co-axially aligned with the guide pin (see FIGS. 1, 2), the sleeve having a first end (20) secured to the guide pin (see FIG. 2), and a second end (26) secured to the caliper (see FIG. 2); the sleeve comprising at least first (30) and second (30) wall portions at which the sleeve is configured to crease upon contraction of the sleeve along a longitudinal axis thereof (see FIG. 2); wherein the sleeve is contractable from an extended position (see e.g. page 3, lines 30-39), where the sleeve is not creased at any of the wall portions (see e.g. page 3, lines 30-39; FIG. 2; sleeve is capable of being fully extended such that no creases exist), to a first contracted position, where the sleeve is creased at the first wall portion and the sleeve is not creased at the remaining wall portion or portions (see e.g. page 3, lines 30-39; sleeve is capable of being creased at one fold (30) while another is extended), and to an ultimate contracted position (see FIG. 2), where the sleeve is creased at both or all wall portions (see FIG. 2); and wherein the extended position, the first contracted position, and the ultimate contracted position of the sleeve depend upon relative axial displacement between the caliper and the guide pin (see e.g. page 3, lines 30-39).
Regarding claim 8, Schmidt discloses that the first wall portion is sized to at least partially fit radially within an adjacent wall portion when the sleeve is in a contracted position (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Schmidt discloses that the sleeve is telescopic (see e.g. page 3, lines 30-39; FIG. 2), such that adjacent wall portions are configured to at least partially fit radially within one another when the sleeve is in a contracted position (see e.g. page 3, lines 30-39; FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Schmidt discloses that each wall portion comprises a visual identification feature (see FIG. 2, each wall portion comprises a different diameter, thereby allowing the wall portions to be distinguished from each other; see also present specification, ¶ 0091, “[e]ach identification feature 30 serves to distinguish the associated wall portion 28 from the remaining wall portions 28”).
Regarding claim 13, Schmidt discloses that the sleeve is resilient (see page 1, lines 100-104).
Regarding claim 14, Schmidt discloses that the sleeve is resiliently biased towards the ultimate contracted position (see FIG. 2; page 3, lines 30-39; sleeve is only displaced upon displacement of caliper).
Regarding claim 17, Schmidt discloses that the sleeve is sealingly secured (at (20)) about a periphery of the guide pin (see FIG. 2), and/or wherein the sleeve is sealingly secured to the caliper (at (24)) so as to seal an open end of the guide bore (see FIGS. 1, 2).
Regarding independent claim 19, Schmidt discloses a heavy vehicle disc brake (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2) comprising: a brake carrier (11); and a caliper guide assembly (12, 15, 17), the caliper guide assembly comprising: a guide pin (12); a caliper (15) that is slidably mounted with respect to the brake carrier (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2), the caliper (15) defining a guide bore (13) arranged to receive the guide pin and permit relative sliding thereof (see page 2, lines 75-96); a sleeve (17) co-axially aligned with the guide pin (see FIGS. 1, 2), the sleeve having a first end (20) secured to the guide pin (see FIG. 2), and a second end (26) secured to the caliper (see FIG. 2); the sleeve comprising at least first (30) and second (30) wall portions at which the sleeve is configured to crease upon contraction of the sleeve along a longitudinal axis thereof (see FIG. 2); wherein the sleeve is contractable from an extended position (see e.g. page 3, lines 30-39), where the sleeve is not creased at any of the wall portions (see e.g. page 3, lines 30-39; FIG. 2; sleeve is capable of being fully extended such that no creases exist), to a first contracted position, where the sleeve is creased at the first wall portion and the sleeve is not creased at the remaining wall portion or portions (see e.g. page 3, lines 30-39; sleeve is capable of being creased at one fold (30) while another is extended), and to an ultimate contracted position (see FIG. 2), where the sleeve is creased at both or all wall portions (see FIG. 2); and wherein the extended position, the first contracted position, and the ultimate contracted position of the sleeve depend upon relative axial displacement between the caliper and the guide pin (see e.g. page 3, lines 30-39).
Regarding independent claim 20, Schmidt discloses a sleeve (17) for a caliper guide assembly (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2), the sleeve comprising: a first end (20) securable to a guide pin (12) (see FIG. 2), and a second end (24) (see FIG. 2) securable to a caliper (15); and at least first (30) and second (30) wall portions at which the sleeve is configured to crease upon contraction of the sleeve along a longitudinal axis thereof (see FIG. 2; see also page 3, lines 30-39); wherein the sleeve is contractable from an extended position, where the sleeve is not creased at any of the wall portions (see e.g. page 3, lines 30-39; FIG. 2; sleeve is capable of being fully extended such that no creases exist), to a first contracted position, where the sleeve is creased at the first wall portion and the sleeve is not creased at the remaining wall portion or portions (see e.g. page 3, lines 30-39; sleeve is capable of being creased at one fold (30) while another is extended), and to an ultimate contracted position, where the sleeve is creased at both or all wall portions (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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (GB 2120330), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Siebke (US 2011/0233013).
Regarding claim 2, Schmidt does not disclose at least first, second and third wall portions as claimed.
Siebke teaches a rolling bellows sleeve comprising first (A) (see Annotated FIG. 3, below), second (B) (see Annotated FIG. 3, below), and third (C) (see Annotated FIG. 3, below) wall portions at which the sleeve is configured to crease upon contraction of the sleeve along the longitudinal axis (see FIG. 3); wherein the sleeve is adjustable in length along the longitudinal axis between the extended position and at least three contracted positions (see e.g. ¶¶ 0005, 0006, 0039, 0040); and wherein at the first contracted position, the sleeve is creased at the first wall portion, and the sleeve is not creased at the remaining wall portions (see e.g. ¶ 0005, bellows unfolds in a stepwise manner, indicating that one crease can remain while the others are unfolded); at a second contracted position, the sleeve is creased at the first wall portion and at the second wall portion and the sleeve is not creased at the remaining wall portion or portions (see e.g. ¶ 0005, bellows unfolds in a stepwise manner, indicating that two creases can remain while the others are unfolded); and at the ultimate contracted position, the sleeve is creased at any of the wall portions (see FIG. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
453
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to replace the two creased wall portions of Schmidt with the three creased wall portions of Siebke to increase the amount of extension capable by the sleeve, thereby allowing for a thicker brake pad and a greater amount of adjustment by the caliper to compensate for wear.
Regarding claim 3, Siebke discloses that the first wall portion is proximal to one of the first end of the sleeve and the second end of the sleeve (see FIG. 3), wherein an ultimate wall portion of the sleeve is proximal to the other of the second end of the sleeve and the first end of the sleeve (see FIG. 3), and wherein the second wall portion is located between the first wall portion and any further wall portions along the longitudinal axis (see FIG. 3).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (GB 2120330), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Bainard et al. (US 4,270,442).
Regarding claim 4, Schmidt does not disclose that each wall portion has a relative wall thickness configured to provide higher or lower resistance to creasing upon contraction of the sleeve in relation to the remaining wall portions.
Bainard teaches a rolling bellows sleeve (see Abstract, FIGS. 2-4) comprising a plurality of wall portions that have relative wall thickness configured to provide higher or lower resistance to creasing upon contraction of the sleeve in relation to the remaining wall portions (see FIG. 2; see also col. 1, line 65 to col. 2, line 2).
It would have been obvious to form the wall portions of Schmidt to have varying wall thicknesses to provide a smoothly retracting and expanding sleeve that enhances flexing and rolling of the sleeve as it is retracted to a convoluted shape and expanded to an elongated shape (see Bainard, FIG. 2; see also col. 1, line 65 to col. 2, line 2)
Regarding claim 5, Bainard teaches that the first wall portion has the lowest relative wall thickness, such that the first wall portion is configured to provide the lowest resistance to creasing upon contraction of the sleeve (see FIGS. 2, 4), and wherein an ultimate wall portion of the sleeve that is disposed at the second end of the sleeve has the highest relative wall thickness, such that the ultimate wall portion is configured to provide the highest resistance to creasing upon contraction of the sleeve (see FIGS. 2, 4).
Regarding claim 6, Bainard discloses that the sleeve wall thickness gradually increases from the first wall portion to the ultimate wall portion (see FIGS. 2, 4).
Regarding claim 7, Bainard discloses that the sleeve wall thickness increases incrementally from the first wall portion to the ultimate wall portion (see FIGS. 2, 4).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (GB 2120330), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Gasslbauer et al. (US 2006/0175155).
Regarding claim 15, Schmidt does not disclose that the sleeve is made of rubber.
Gasslbauer teaches a rolling sealing bellows sleeve (9) (see FIG. 3) that is made of rubber (see ¶ 0020).
It would have been obvious to make the sleeve of Schmidt from rubber to utilize an elastic material that is known to be suitable for use in a rolling sealing bellows (see e.g. Gasslbauer, ¶ 0020).
Regarding claim 16, Schmidt does not disclose that the sleeve is made of silicone rubber.
Gasslbauer teaches a rolling sealing bellows sleeve (9) (see FIG. 3) that is made of silicone rubber (see ¶ 0020).
It would have been obvious to make the sleeve of Schmidt from silicone rubber to utilize an elastic material that is known to be suitable for use in a rolling sealing bellows (see e.g. Gasslbauer, ¶ 0020).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (GB 2120330) (hereinafter “Schmidt ‘330”), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Schmidt (US 4,570,760) (hereinafter “Schmidt ‘760”).
Regarding claim 18, Schmidt ‘330 does not disclose that the first end of the sleeve is received within a corresponding groove defined by the guide pin.
Schmidt ‘760 teaches a caliper guide assembly (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-3) comprising: a guide pin (4) and a sleeve (9), wherein the first end of the sleeve is received within a corresponding groove (19) defined by the guide pin (see FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to combine the groove and first end of Schmidt ‘760 with the device of Schmidt ‘330 to provide a means for axially securing the sleeve to the guide pin that prevents slippage in both forward and reverse axial directions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
April 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights