DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 13 May 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2017/0370453).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US 2017/0370453).
In Re claim 1, Suzuki discloses an electric parking brake (EPB; par. 0003) comprising: a spindle (12) with an external thread (18); and a spindle nut (14) with an internal thread (20) in engagement with the external thread, wherein the external thread and internal thread have a symmetrical thread profile (par. 0025 states that the thread may have a symmetrical profile) with a rounded portion in the trough (see figs. 3-6).
In Re claim 9, the crests (24, 32) of the spindle and nut threads are understood to be grounded, as they do not extend to a point.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 2-8 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2017/0370453).
In Re claims 2-8 and 11-19, Suzuki et al. disclose the claimed electric parking brake actuator with a spindle and spindle nut each having a rounded thread trough profile/shape, but fail to specifically disclose the dimensions of said threads. However, the examiner asserts that 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 co-mating threads of the spindle and spindle nut to have any profile/shape, including: a rounded portion radius between 0.23mm and 0.27mm; a thread flank angle between 26.5 degrees and 29.5 degrees; a pitch between 1.2mm and 1.3mm; a diameter between 8.3mm and 8.4mm; a core diameter between 6.35mm and 6.95mm, a flank diameter between 7.5mm and 7.9mm, and a flank width of 0.62mm and 0.63mm, as a matter of engineering design choice based on the operating conditions to provide a strong product while minimizing excess material and meeting sizing and packaging constraints, while also providing smooth and optimal performance.
The examiner notes that it has been held that a modification involving a mere change in size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). The examiner further notes that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2017/0370453) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peric (US 2023/0003270).
In Re claim 10, Suzuki et al. disclose the claimed invention, with the exception of teaching a rolling and heat treating method steps.
Peric is related to the art of automotive parking brake actuators. Peric teaches forming a spindle (11) and spindle nut (20) for a parking brake device (Abstract), and forming the spindle and nut threads (13, 23) via a thread rolling and heat treatment process (par. 0017). Thread rolling and heat treating creates stronger, more fatigue-resistant threads, with improved tensile strength and grain structure, by introducing beneficial compressive residual stresses into the thread roots, significantly improving performance over cut threads. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spindle and spindle nut threads of Suzuki et al. to be formed by a rolling and heat treatment process, as taught by Peric, to produce stronger, more robust threads, enabling a longer service life expectancy, and allowing for greater force application during use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights