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 .
Specification/Drawings
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0024] indicates that hole 84 extends through the back wall 88, and the back wall is also the interface wall. [0061] appears to indicate that 88 or 340 are the interface wall, and hole 84 is sized for a cutting tool. Figure 7 show the interface wall 340, and surface 301 which is machined to form opening 84 [0062]. Interface wall 340 of figure 7 does not appear to correspond to back wall 88 of figure 3, despite what is stated in [0024] and [0061]. Instead, back wall 88 appears to correspond to the transverse wall 330. [0061] further appears to indicate that a tool 400 inserted into opening 84 can be used to machine features in transverse wall 330. As it does not seem reasonable that a tool inserted in opening 84 can be used to machine wall 330.
It is further noted that [0061] discusses “a hole 84 (not shown in FIGS. 7-9B)”, however, the amended drawings appear to now show opening 84.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-16 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.
Claim 10 has been amended to recite “the transverse wall defining a recess” and later recites “inserting a cutting tool through the recess in the interface wall”. It is not clear if the recess is in the transverse wall or the interface wall.
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.
Claim(s) 10-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antony (US# 7506732) in view of Stumpf et al (US# 2011/0127120).
Regarding claim 10, Antony discloses providing a brake caliper housing 1, the brake caliper housing having a first end wall; a second end wall disposed opposite the first end wall; a transverse wall that extends from the first end wall to the second end wall; an interface wall that extends from the first end wall to the second end wall, opposite to the transverse wall, the interface wall cooperating with the first end wall, the second end wall, and the transverse wall to at least partially define a cavity, the interface wall defining a recess; and a roller seat 10 defined in the transverse wall adapted to support a roller 16. Antony lacks the disclosure of inserting a cutting tool through the recess in the interface wall, the cutting tool adapted to machine surfaces of the brake caliper housing; and machining the roller seat with the cutting tool such that flat abutment surfaces are formed to accommodate an end of the roller. Stumpf et al disclose a similar caliper and further teach the method of inserting a cutting tool 40 through the recess 10.2 in an interface wall, the cutting tool adapted to machine surfaces of the brake caliper housing, machining a roller seat 22.1/22.2 with the cutting tool such that flat abutment surfaces are formed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the machining method taught by Stumpf et al to form the seat of Antony as an obvious means of manufacture which provides the necessary surface configurations without weakening the caliper.
Regarding claim 11, a roller is provided having a body with an end having an enlarged cross-section relative to a diameter of the body to be accommodated in the roller seat.
Regarding claim 12, Stumpf et al teach the cutting tool is a ball nose cutter or a flat ended endmill. [0044]
Regarding claim 13, the flat abutment surfaces are generally perpendicular to each other.
Regarding claim 15, note the empty zone in the form of a gap between the outside ends of roller 16 and the first or second walls. Figure 2.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Antony (US# 7506732) and Stumpf et al (US# 2011/0127120), as applied to claim 10 above, in further view of DeMorais et al (US# 2017/0023079).
Antony, as modified above, disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to the machining further includes inserting a second cutting tool, after removal of the cutting tool, to complete formation of the flat abutment surfaces. DeMorais et al disclose a brake caliper structure and further teach further machining such as buffing or polishing to provide an appropriate surface finish. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second cutting tool to further refine the surface finish, such as taught by DeMorais et al, to provide accurate positioning of the rollers or reduce friction and wear in the guiding surfaces.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 17-20 are allowed.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection based on Klaas et al as the claim now requires “the roller seat having flat abutment surfaces for accommodating the end of the roller, and an empty zone defined in the transverse wall between the roller seat and a respective end wall of the first and second end walls, the empty zone adapted to allow the cutting tool to run off an end of the roller seat into the empty zone when machining the roller seat such that the flat abutment surfaces are formed to accommodate the end of the roller” which defines over the curved seat 21 and separate flat abutment surface 44 of Klaas et al. Antony also lacks the empty zone adapted to allow the cutting tool to run off an end of the roller seat into the empty zone when machining the roller seat such that the flat abutment surfaces are formed to accommodate the end of the roller.
Regarding claim 10, It is noted that the claim does not require the empty zone adapted to allow the cutting tool to run off an end of the roller seat into the empty zone when machining the roller seat such that the flat abutment surfaces are formed to accommodate the end of the roller.
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 BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 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.
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
BTK
Prosecution Insights