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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the newly amended limitations are not taught by the prior art; Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has amended the claims such that container housing is adapted to be disposed on the front side of the brake device. Applicant argues that the additional language of the container... adapted to be disposed on the front side is not taught by the prior art. Applicant’s argument that the modifying reference being unibody does not alter Examiner’s position. The modifying reference is merely being used to teach that it is known in the field of art for a braking device to be placed in the orientation of Applicant’s claimed invention. Furthermore, the newly amended limitation of adapted to be disposed on the front side does not really provide any additional structure details that the modifying reference that teaches said orientation does not contain. That is the modifying reference contains a container that is adapted to be disposed at the front side of the braking device. Therefore, Examiner still believes in light of the modifying reference that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the primary reference into such an orientation. It is for this reason that applicant is not persuaded.
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:
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 (5, 7, and 9) for the at least one pressure medium container which supplies 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 wherien 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.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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 (5, 7, and 9) for the at least one pressure medium container which supplies 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 piece is oriented one of parallel to the forward direction of travel or at an acute angle to the forward direction of travel.
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.
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 are allowed. Applicant has placed the previously indicated allowable subject matter into independent form.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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