DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits for application no. 18/664,626 filed on May 15th, 2024. Claims 1-11 are pending.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s claim to priority of application DE 10 2023 205 262.8 filed on June 6th, 2023. A certified copy was received on September 20th, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 15th, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the Examiner.
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 1-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1 (lines 6-7) and 2 (line 2), in the recitation of “wherein the brake caliper is formed in one piece and forms not only an axial support for the spindle drive” it is generally unclear which portions of the brake caliper are formed in one piece as the brake calipers seen in Figs. 1-3 are all formed of separate pieces. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the brake caliper
Regarding Claim 1 (lines 6-8), in the recitation of “wherein the brake caliper is formed in one piece and forms not only an axial support for the spindle drive but also a caliper body” the difference between the “housing” recited in claim 1 (line 2) and the “caliper body” recited in claim 1 (line 8) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the brake caliper the housing” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. Also amend claim 2 (line 2). See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 7 (line 2), in the recitation of “wherein a region of the one-piece brake caliper” it is generally unclear which portions of the brake caliper are formed in one piece as the brake calipers seen in Figs. 1-3 are all formed of separate pieces. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein a region of the
Regarding Claim 11 (lines 7-8), in the recitation of “wherein the brake caliper is formed in one piece and forms not only an axial support for the spindle” it is generally unclear which portions of the brake caliper are formed in one piece as the brake calipers seen in Figs. 1-3 are all formed of separate pieces. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the brake caliper
Regarding Claim 11 (lines 7-9), in the recitation of “wherein the brake caliper is formed in one piece and forms not only an axial support for the spindle drive but also a caliper body” the difference between the “housing” recited in claim 11 (line 3) and the “caliper body” recited in claim 11 (line 9) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the brake caliper the housing” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Claims 2-9 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim.
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 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, 6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aschoff (WO 2007/107398). See translation provided to Applicant with this Office Action.
Regarding Claim 1, Aschoff teaches an electromechanical brake (see Figs. 1-3 and 5-6; “parking brake device” 1) for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a brake caliper (“brake caliper” 2) forming a housing (housing portion of 2 and “gearbox housing” 13) in which is arranged a spindle drive (“spindle” 10) that is drivable via a drive motor (“electric motor” 7) so that a brake piston (“brake piston” 5) is movable for applying an axial braking force (see Figs. 1-3 and 5-6);
wherein the brake caliper (2, 13) is formed in one piece (see 112(b) rejection above) and forms not only an axial support (see Figs. 1-3 and 5-6) for the spindle drive (10) but also a caliper body (body portion of 2; see 112(b) rejection above) so that the braking force and a supporting force counteracting the braking force are absorbed by the brake caliper (2; see Figs. 1-3 and 5-6).
Regarding Claim 6, Aschoff teaches the electromechanical brake according to claim 1,
wherein the drive motor (Figs. 1-3 and 5-6; 7) is attached to the brake caliper (2).
Regarding Claim 8, Aschoff teaches the electromechanical brake according to claim 1,
wherein a drive gear (Figs. 1-3 and 5-6; “second spur gear” 9d) cooperating with the spindle drive (10) is arranged in the housing (housing portion of 2 and 13) formed by the brake caliper (2).
Regarding Claim 9, Aschoff teaches the electromechanical brake according to claim 8,
wherein a parking brake (Figs. 1-3 and 5-6; “gearbox” 9) is arranged in the housing (2, 13) formed by the brake caliper (2; p. 7 – “The parking brake device 6 is arranged facing inwards towards the inside of the vehicle”).
Regarding Claim 10, Aschoff teaches the electromechanical brake according to claim 1,
wherein a drive gear (Figs. 1-3 and 5-6; 9d) cooperating with the spindle drive (10) is arranged in a gear housing (13) arranged on the brake caliper (2).
Regarding Claim 11, Aschoff teaches a motor vehicle (p. 7 – “The parking brake device 6 is arranged facing inwards towards the inside of the vehicle”), comprising:
an electromechanical brake (Figs. 1-3 and 5-6; 1), including:
a brake caliper (2) forming a housing (2, 13) in which is arranged a spindle drive (10) that is drivable via a drive motor (7) so that a brake piston (5) is movable for applying an axial braking force (see Figs. 1-3 and 5-6),
wherein the brake caliper (2) is formed in one piece (see 112(b) rejection above) and forms not only an axial support for the spindle drive (10) but also a caliper body (body portion of 2; see 112(b) rejection above) so that the braking force and a supporting force counteracting the braking force are absorbed by the brake caliper (2; see Figs. 1-3 and 5-6).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschoff (WO 2007/107398), in view of Winkler (US 12,169,005).
Regarding Claim 2, Aschoff teaches the electromechanical brake according to claim 1,
wherein the caliper body of the brake caliper (Figs. 1 and 5; 2) has a cutout (see Figs. 1 and 5).
Aschoff does not explicitly teach “a cutout, via which the spindle drive and the brake piston are insertable into the housing formed by the brake caliper”.
Winkler teaches a caliper body of a brake caliper (Figs. 1-2; “brake caliper” 1) has a cutout (see Fig. 2), via which a spindle drive (“nut/spindle module” 12) and a brake piston (“brake piston” 7) are insertable into a housing (housing portion of 1) formed by the brake caliper (1; see Fig. 2).
Winkler also teaches “By means of this design, the nut can first be screwed onto the spindle, and this nut/spindle module can be introduced into the recess of the brake piston vertically. Since a force equilibrium is avoided in the case of an inclined position, the nut/spindle module automatically moves back into the vertical position at all times. Avoiding the force equilibrium is achieved by means of a suitable geometry of the components. Thereby reset forces for setting the nut/spindle module back into the vertical position are generated. Thanks to the invention, the nut/spindle module can be introduced into the recess of the brake piston and can be introduced into the stepped bore of the brake caliper with the spindle in front. Canting of the components due to tilting of the nut/spindle module is avoided thanks to the invention. As a result, installation of brake piston and nut/spindle module in the brake caliper housing becomes particularly easy” (col. 1, line 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the caliper body taught by Aschoff with the cutout taught by Winkler, such that “a cutout, via which the spindle drive and the brake piston are insertable into the housing formed by the brake caliper”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of making the installation of the spindle drive taught by Aschoff particularly easy.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschoff (WO 2007/107398), in view of Carrara (US 12,128,861).
Regarding Claim 3, Aschoff teaches the electromechanical brake according to claim 1.
Aschoff does not teach “wherein an anti-rotation lock for the spindle drive is formed by the brake caliper”.
Carrara teaches an anti-rotation lock (Figs. 2-3; “retaining device” 34) for a spindle drive (at least “screw drive” 9) is formed by a brake caliper (“brake caliper” 1; col. 6, line 53 – “the thrust device 5 comprises a retaining device 34 which can prevent the rotation of the thrust device 5 in the housing of the thrust device 4”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the brake caliper taught by Aschoff with the anti-rotation lock taught by Carrara, such that “wherein an anti-rotation lock for the spindle drive is formed by the brake caliper”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of preventing the brake piston taught by Aschoff from rotating.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschoff (WO 2007/107398), in view of Shaw (US 5,219,048).
Regarding Claim 4, Aschoff teaches the electromechanical brake according to claim 1.
Aschoff does not teach “wherein at least one separate inner part, via which at least one anti-rotation lock for the spindle drive is formed, is inserted into the brake caliper”.
Shaw teaches at least one separate inner part (Fig. 3, “seal” 46), via which at least one anti-rotation lock (46) for a spindle drive (at least “ball nut” 40) is formed, is inserted into a brake caliper (“caliper” 10; col. 2, line 15 – “seal 46 also aids in preventing rotation of the piston 42”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the brake caliper taught by Aschoff with the anti-rotation lock taught by Shaw, such that “wherein at least one separate inner part, via which at least one anti-rotation lock for the spindle drive is formed, is inserted into the brake caliper”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of preventing the brake piston taught by Aschoff from rotating.
Regarding Claim 5, Aschoff and Shaw teach the electromechanical brake according to claim 4,
Shaw teaches wherein the separate inner part (Fig. 3; 46) is non-positively or positively connected to the brake caliper (10; see Fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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 rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Heibel (US 5,769,189), Song (US 11,187,292), Fujita (US 5,107,967) and Choi (US 12,025,197) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" disclose similar brake calipers comprising spindle drives and drive motors related to various aspects of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights