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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/15/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/31/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the newly amended limitations overcome the prior art; Examiner is not persuaded. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertions of the modifying references. Gandia discloses a container connected to a brake module, the container having two connection pieces. Gandia merely fails to disclose Applicant’s orientation which is that the reservoir connection point is located in the “front side” of the brake module and parallel to the central axis of the brake module (parallel with the master cylinder piston motion). It is merely the orientation and interconnection that Munson is being relied upon as a teaching reference. Munson discloses that it is known in the field of endeavor for a brake module to have a reservoir located on the “Front side” and the connection point between the master cylinder of the brake module be parallel. As such, Examiner maintains in light of Munson it would be obvious to reconfigure Gandia to the orientation required by the claim language. It is for this reason the Examiner has maintained his rejection.
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 12, and 14- 30 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.
Claims 12, 29, and 30 all recites in some similar fashion the following claim language: “having a front side oriented toward a forward direction of travel of the motor vehicle and a rear side oriented toward a backward direction of travel of the motor vehicle”. Examiner notes that Applicant’s attempt to establish an orientation of a front side and rear side based off a direction of travel is problematic because a vehicle is capable of having multiple directions of travel. For example, per the claim language “the front side” of the brake module would be different location when the vehicle is traveling in forward and reverse. Furthermore, given the orientation is critical to several of the limitations this leaves an ambiguity as to the interconnectedness of the components of the claim. Examiner suggests establishing a orientation via a static point or alternatively adding further limiting factors such as a forward direction when the vehicle is traveling forward.
Claims 14-28 are rejected based off their dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 12, 14-18, 21-24, 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandia et al., US20200262405A1 (hereinafter “Gandia”) in view of Munson, GB 1,032,688 (hereinafter “Munson”).
In Reference to Claim 12:
In so far as the claim is defined (See, 112 rejection), Gandia discloses a motor vehicle (See, Abstract which discloses that the brake system is for a motor vehicle) having a front defining a forward travel and a rear defining a backward direction of travel comprising: a brake device for a hydraulic brake system the device including: at least one brake device housing (1) having a front side oriented substantially in the forward direction of travel of the motor vehicle (it is well known that brake reservoirs and the master cylinder is located under the hood of the front of the vehicle to allow for easily maintenance on the brake (specifically flushing and refilling the brake fluid of the brake system) and a rear side oriented (where the pedal in the backward direction of travel of the motor vehicle; at least one pressure medium container (“reservoir” 2) including: a container housing (2) on the brake device housing; at least one first connection piece and a second connection piece(5, 7, and 9) plugged into first and second receiving seats to supply the brake device with a hydraulic pressure medium and is plugged in a receiving seat formed in the brake device housing (See, Figure 2, 4 and 7)
Gandia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the container housing is adapted to be disposed on the front side of the brake device (not disclosing such orientation) and wherein the central axis of the connection piece is oriented one of parallel to the forward direction of travel or at an acute angle to the forward direction of travel, instead teaching a perpendicular orientation and the second connection piece is oriented parallel to the first connection piece.
However, in the same field of endeavor, hydraulic brake systems for motor vehicles, Munson discloses a hydraulic brake wherein a container housing is disposed on the front side of the braking device and the connection opening between the container housing and the brake device configured such that the orientation between the inlet of the fluid is located parallel (See, Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Gandia such that the hydraulic brake reservoir connected by Gandias connection piece is located in the front of the brake device with said connection piece being parallel to the direction of travel because such an orientation/configuration of a brake system with the reservoir located in the front of the brake device housing is known by Munson (See, Figure 1). It would be obvious in light of Munson because such configuration is known to be used in the field of endeavor and would be a design choice for a vehicle depending on the allotted space in the engine bay for the brake, i.e., potentially having a height restriction but longer space in the engine bay . Examiner notes with emphasis the modification of Gandia to be in the orientation as taught by Munson would require the connection piece be placed in a parallel direction of travel as taught by the claim and shown by Munson (connection between reservoir and the brake device being parallel).
In Reference to Claim 14:
In so far as the claim is defined (See, 112 Rejection), Gandia further discloses wherein the pressure medium container has at least two fastening tabs for fastening to the brake device housing. See, Figure 3 and 3b.
In Reference to Claim 15:
In so far as the claim is defined (See, 112 Rejection), Gandia as modified further discloses wherein the fastening tabs extend substantially in the forward direction of travel and are spaced apart from one another transversely to the forward direction of travel. See, Figure 3 and 3b of Gandia which shows the tabs are spaced apart from one another transversely. Examiner notes said tabs would be located substantially in the forward direction of travel when the reservoir and connection orifices are modified by Munson be located in front of the master cylinder housing.
In Reference to Claim 16:
In so far as the claim is defined (See, 112 Rejection), Gandia further discloses wherein each fastening tab is one of connected to the container housing and integrally formed on the container housing by a first end and has a fastening eye at another end. See, Figure 3 and 3b.
In Reference to Claim 17:
In so far as the claim is defined (See, 112 Rejection), Gandia as modified further discloses wherein the fastening tabs are offset in the forward direction of travel with respect to a center of gravity of the pressure medium container.
In Reference to Claim 18:
In so far as the claim is defined (See, 112 Rejection), Gandia further discloses wherein the pressure medium container is secured to the brake device housing by a transverse bolt which extends through an aperture in the brake device housing and through the fastening eyes in the at least two fastening tabs. See, Figure 3a and 3b.
In Reference to Claim 21:
In so far as the claim is defined (See, 112 Rejection), Gandia further discloses wherein the at least two fastening tabs have a predetermined breaking point. Examiner notes that it is inherent that the tabs such as all materials have a predetermined breaking point established by the material properties of the tabs and the shape and thickness.
In Reference to Claim 22:
In so far as the claim is defined (See, 112 Rejection) Gandia further discloses wherein the breaking point is at least one point under a defined breaking load. Examiner notes that it is inherent that under a breaking load that the tab would break in at least one point.
In Reference to Claim 23:
In so far as the claim is defined (See, 112 Rejection) Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to as suggested in the claim design the fastening tab such that load used for a structural design of the fastening tab is higher than a tensile force acting on the fastening tab when the pressure medium container is filled under pressure and lower than a smallest possible force that is necessary for a loss of integrity of the container housing due to acceleration forces acting on the container housing from at least one of the inside and outside. As such design would appear to be a routine consideration to provide enough strength to hold the container in typical and even atypical road conditions but also allow for shearing during unnormal conditions such as when a collision with the vehicle by an object occurs.
In Reference to Claim 24:
In so far as the claim is defined (See, 112 Rejection) Gandia further discloses wherein the pressure medium container has at least one second connection piece, which is oriented parallel to the first connection piece and is spaced apart therefrom in a vertical direction, and the fastening tabs are arranged in the vertical direction in a region between the first and the second connection piece. See, Figure 2 or Figure 3b.
In Reference to Claim 27:
Gandia further discloses wherein the brake device is mechanically actuable by a driver via an actuating member which is arranged on the rear side of the brake device housing. See, Figure 1.
In Reference to Claim 28:
In so far as the claim is defined (See, 112 Rejection) Gandia further discloses an electromotive drive unit to actuate the brake device; and an electronic control unit to control the drive unit, wherein the drive unit and the control unit are fastened to the brake device housing on opposite sides. See, Figure 1 which illustrates a motor attached to the brake housing but not labeled. See also, Background of the Invention which disclose the apparatus as an electric actuator thereby inherently claiming an electromotive drive and a control unit of the sort.
In Reference to Claim 29:
In so far as the claim is defined (See, 112 Rejection) Gandia discloses a brake device for a hydraulic brake system the device including: at least one brake device housing (1) having a front side oriented substantially in the forward direction of travel of the motor vehicle (it is well known that brake reservoirs and the master cylinder is located under the hood of the front of the vehicle to allow for easily maintenance on the brake (specifically flushing and refilling the brake fluid of the brake system) and a rear side oriented (where the pedal in the backward direction of travel of the motor vehicle; and a container housing (2); at least one pressure medium container (“reservoir” 2) arranged on the brake device housing; at least one first connection piece and second connection piece(5, 7, and 9) plugged into the first and second receiving seats of the brake device housing to supply the brake device with a hydraulic pressure medium and is plugged in a receiving seat formed in the brake device housing (See, Figure 2, 4 and 7)
Gandia fails to explicitly disclose central axis of the connection pieces is oriented one of parallel to and at the front side of the brake device housing.
However, in the same field of endeavor, hydraulic brake systems for motor vehicles, Munson discloses a hydraulic brake wherein the connection piece is located in front of the master brake cylinder and wherein the connection piece for connecting the pressure medium container to the brake device is located parallel to the direction of travel (See, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Gandia such that the hydraulic brake reservoir is attached and located in the front of the master cylinder housing and has a connection piece which connects the reservoir to the brake device in a parallel direction of travel because as taught by Munson such configuration is known to be used in the field of endeavor and would be a design choice for a vehicle depending on the allotted space in the engine bay for the brake, i.e., potentially having a narrow but longer space in the engine bay.
In Reference to Claim 30:
In so far as the claim is defined (See, 112 Rejection), Gandia discloses a brake device for a hydraulic brake system the device including: at least one brake device housing (1) having a front side oriented toward a forward direction of travel of the motor vehicle and a rear side oriented toward a backward direction of travel of the motor vehicle; and a container(2) including: at least one pressure medium container fastened to the brake device housing on opposing lateral exterior surfaces of the brake device housing(See, Figure 1 which shows a bolt attaching the housing to the lateral sides); at least one first connection piece (5, 7 or 9) for the at least one pressure medium container which supplies the brake device with a hydraulic pressure medium and wherein the connection piece is plugged in a receiving seat.
Gandia fails to disclose the orientation as recited by the claim at least one pressure medium container adapted to be disposed on the front side of the brake device housing wherein the at least one first connection piece defines a central axis oriented parallel to the forward direction of travel or at an acute angle to the forward direction of travel, and wherein the at least one first connection piece is plugged in a receiving seat formed on the front side of the brake device housing.
However, in the same field of endeavor, hydraulic brake systems for motor vehicles, Munson discloses a hydraulic brake wherein a container housing is disposed on the front side of the braking device and the connection opening between the container housing and the brake device configured such that the orientation between the inlet of the fluid is located parallel (See, Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Gandia such that the hydraulic brake reservoir connected by Gandias connection piece is located in the front of the brake device with said connection piece being parallel to the direction of travel because such an orientation/configuration of a brake system with the reservoir located in the front of the brake device housing is known by Munson (See, Figure 1). It would be obvious in light of Munson because such configuration is known to be used in the field of endeavor and would be a design choice for a vehicle depending on the allotted space in the engine bay for the brake, i.e., potentially having a height restriction but longer space in the engine bay . Examiner notes with emphasis the modification of Gandia to be in the orientation as taught by Munson would require the connection piece be placed in a parallel direction of travel as taught by the claim and shown by Munson (connection between reservoir and the brake device being parallel).
Claim(s) 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandia et al., US20200262405A1 (hereinafter “Gandia”) in view of Munson, GB 1,032,688 (hereinafter “Munson”) in futher view Hurwic, U.S. Patent Publication 6,892,537 (hereinafter “Hurwic”).
In Reference to Claim 25 and 26:
Gandia as modified discloses all the limitations of claims 12, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a hydraulically tight membrane is arranged in the container housing at least partially on an outer wall of the container housing and wherein the membrane lines the container housing almost entirely.
However, in the same field of endeavor, motor vehicle brake reservoirs, Hurwic discloses a hydraulic fluid reservoir housing wherein there is a hydraulically tight membrane lines nearly the entire reservoir. See, Figure 1 or alternately Figure 3.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of effective filing to modify Gandia to include the membrane pouch (14) internally to isolate the hydraulic fluid as taught by Hurwic because it is well known by a PHOSITA that such a membrane allows for hydraulic fluid expansion and contraction due to temperature difference while protecting the master cylinder from getting debris from the air vents of the tank.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S. COLLINS whose telephone number is (313)446-6535. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-4648. 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.
/DANIEL S COLLINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights