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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 04/04/2024, 06/29/2022, and 03/28/2025 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Both of the IDS filed on 04/04/2024 and 03/28/2025 contain a German Search Report for corresponding German Application Serial No. 10 2023 205 487.6, dated 22 February 2024, Pages 1-10 which is presented in the German language and lacks an English translation. Both of the IDS filed on 06/29/2022 and 03/28/2025 contain European Patent No. EP 2508400 B1, Publication Date 2016-06-29, Applicant Lenczner Sylvain et al, which is presented in the French language and then contains a translation from Espacenet appended, which is also in the French language and lacks an English translation. See below for images of the European Patent No. EP 2508400 B1 provided which includes the patent itself in French and as Espacenet translation, also in French.
PNG
media_image1.png
818
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
756
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 23, “of the a filter chamber” in line 2 of the claim should read “of the filter chamber”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noll et al (US Patent Application No. 20160176390 A1) hereinafter Noll.
Regarding Claim 1, Noll teaches a fluid reservoir for a motor vehicle brake system including a fluid reservoir, a master brake cylinder, and at least one filter element between them, disposed in a fluid channel (i.e., a filter for a brake fluid reservoir; Abstract) that has an insert element with a cylindrical body (i.e., side wall; Fig. 4a, #24; Paragraph 0038), a collar shaped stop portion which is attached to the “first end” (i.e., a flange extending radially outwardly from the side wall at the first end of the side wall) of the cylindrical body (i.e., a side wall extending from a first end toa second end in a filling/siphoning direction, the side wall at least partially defining a filter chamber through which brake fluid may flow from the first end to the second end of the side wall; Fig. 4a, #30), an opening at collar with a filter element (i.e., a flange aperture extending through the radially extending flange in the filling/siphoning direction, the flange aperture being spaced from the filter chamber; a first filter mesh covering the flange aperture for preventing contaminants from passing through the flange aperture; Fig. 4a, #22, 30). Noll separately teaches in a second embodiment that the connecting piece (Fig. 3, #16; Paragraph 0038) has its own filter element (i.e., a second filter mesh) which can be seen in both Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, also as item #22, that covers the second end or “end wall” of the cylindrical body (i.e., an end wall at a second end of the side wall, spaced from the first end in the filling siphon direction; Paragraph 0036), through which outflowing brake fluid flows (i.e., an end aperture extending through the end wall; Paragraph 0040). The flange aperture and the filter chamber are shown in marked up Fig. 4a from Noll below, spaced as described in the instant claim.
PNG
media_image3.png
152
253
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Noll does not teach a second filter mesh covering the end aperture for preventing contaminants from passing through the end aperture, where the second mesh (and flange aperture) and the first mesh (and end aperture) are spaced from the first end in the filling/siphoning direction in a single embodiment. Noll teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, and the only qualification to this statement is that all of the limitations are found in two separate embodiments of Noll, not in one embodiment. Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness, Boston Scientific Scimed Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 89 USPQ2d 1704, 1712 (Fed. Cir. 2009). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use both embodiments of the mesh configurations in a single invention to add redundancy to the filter mesh, as filters are known to wear and fail over time, allowing redundancy to protect the brake fluid system from contaminants for a longer period of time.
Furthermore, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))(See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Noll teaches the claimed invention except for the duplication of meshes in one embodiment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the meshes through the apertures since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate meshes for the purpose of ensuring filtering capability remains despite the wear and failure of one of the mesh filters.
Regarding Claim 2, Noll makes obvious the filter for a brake fluid reservoir of claim 1. Noll further teaches that the insert elements (Fig. 2, #24) take the form of tubular hollow bodies and/or cylinders (i.e., wherein the side wall is free from apertures; Paragraph 0038).
Regarding Claim 3, Noll makes obvious the filter for a brake fluid reservoir of claim 1. Noll further teaches a fastening portion (Fig. 2, #26) that extend around the insert element (Fig. 2, #24) in the form of a bead-like projection (i.e., wherein the side wall includes a retaining protrusion thereon; Paragraph 0038).
Regarding Claim 4, Noll makes obvious the filter for a brake fluid reservoir of claim 1. Noll further teaches a cylinder and/or tubular hollow body (Fig. 2, #24; Paragraph 0038) through which the brake fluid volume is exchanged between the fluid reservoir (i.e., filling direction; Fig. 1, #12) and the master brake cylinder (i.e., siphoning direction; Fig. 1, #14) and the filter elements collect and/or filter out dirt particles (i.e., wherein the flange is spaced in a filling/siphoning direction from the end wall, the flange aperture extending in the filling/siphoning direction through the flange, the end aperture extending in the filling/siphoning direction through the end wall; Paragraph 0036).
Regarding Claim 7, Noll makes obvious the filter for a brake fluid reservoir of claim 1. Noll further teaches multiple forms of integral formation of the filter element with its respective component of the fluid reservoir and master brake cylinder or with the insert element including using a plastics casting process (i.e., wherein the flange is integrally molded onto the first filter mesh via an injection-molding process, the end wall being integrally molded onto the second filter mesh via the injection-molding process; Paragraph 0020).
Regarding Claim 19, Noll makes obvious the filter for a brake fluid reservoir of claim 1. Noll further teaches a collar shaped stop portion which is attached to the “first end” of the cylindrical body (Fig. 4a, #30), an opening at collar with a filter element (i.e., wherein the first filter mesh is connected to and engages the flange; Fig. 4a, #22, 30). Noll separately teaches in a second embodiment that the connecting piece (Fig. 3, #16; Paragraph 0038) has its own filter element (i.e., a second filter mesh) which can be seen in both Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, also as item #22, that covers the second end or “end wall” of the cylindrical body (i.e., the second filter mesh is connected to and engages the end wall; Paragraph 0036), through which outflowing brake fluid flows (Paragraph 0040).
Noll does not teach the two locations of filter meshes engaging with the flange and end wall separately in a single embodiment. Noll teaches all of the limitations of claim 19, and the only qualification to this statement is that all of the limitations are found in two separate embodiments of Noll, not in one embodiment. Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness, Boston Scientific Scimed Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 89 USPQ2d 1704, 1712 (Fed. Cir. 2009). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use both embodiments of the mesh configurations in a single invention to add redundancy to the filter mesh, as filters are known to wear and fail over time, allowing redundancy to protect the brake fluid system from contaminants for a longer period of time.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noll in view of Jeon (US Patent No. 9321443 B2) hereinafter Jeon.
Regarding Claim 5, Noll makes obvious the filter for a brake fluid reservoir of claim 1. Noll does not explicitly disclose wherein the flange has a plurality of flange apertures extending therethrough, the first filter mesh covering each of the flange apertures.
However, Jeon teaches that a ring may be provided on the flange part (Fig. 3, #24) and that a plurality of vent holes may be formed through the ring (i.e., wherein the flange has a plurality of flange apertures extending therethrough; Col. 3, Lines 24-35) for the purpose of allowing air to pass through as oil is introduced into the reservoir (Col. 3, Lines 12-23).
Jeon is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a reservoir tank of a brake master cylinder provided with an oil introduction port and a filter in the introduction port (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cylinder insert and collar shaped stop with the additional ring and through holes taught by Jeon because air would pass through when fluid was flowing through the filters.
Claims 6, 8-15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noll in view of Neumann et al (US Patent No. 8615995 B2) hereinafter Neumann.
Regarding Claim 6, Noll makes obvious the filter for a brake fluid reservoir of claim 1. Noll does not explicitly disclose wherein the end wall has a plurality of end apertures extending therethrough, the second filter mesh covering each of the end apertures.
However, Neumann teaches filter apertures (Fig. 1, #14) located in the base (Fig. 1, #13) of the filling filter (i.e., the end wall has a plurality of end apertures extending therethrough; Fig. 1, #11; Col. 4, Lines 58-67). The benefit of the filter apertures is that that they can be produced during the manufacture of the housing by means of a special molding die (Col. 2, Lines 29-40).
Neumann is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a fluid reservoir for a motor vehicle hydraulic brake system containing a filling filter (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bottom of the cylindrical insert taught by Noll with the filter apertures taught by Neumann because the apertures would be able to be make at the same time as the housing in a molding process.
Regarding Claim 8, as described in claim 1, Noll makes obvious the filter for a brake fluid reservoir. Noll further teaches a fluid reservoir (i.e., housing defining a fluid chamber; Fig. 1, #12) with a filling opening in its upper end (i.e., having a fluid inlet port; Fig. 1, #13; Paragraph 0034).
Noll does not teach the filter inserted into the housing, the filter being supported on an inner shoulder of the fluid inlet port via the flange.
However, Neumann teaches a filler neck (Fig. 4, #8) into which the filling filter (Fig. 4, #41) is inserted and the circumferential collar (Fig. 4, #45) sits on the collar (Fig. 4, #47) of the filler neck (i.e., the filter inserted into the housing, the filter being supported on an inner shoulder of the fluid inlet port via the flange; Col. 5, Lines 61-67 to Col 6, Lines 1-2). Additionally, Neumann teaches that the filling filter is located in the filler neck to produce a cost-effective and easily assembled fluid reservoir (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter location taught by Noll to the filler neck as taught by Neumann because the location would make the fluid reservoir production cost effective and the device easier to assemble.
Regarding Claim 9, Noll in view of Neumann makes obvious the brake fluid reservoir in claim 8. Neumann further teaches that the filling filter (Fig. 1, #11) extends down such that the base (Fig. 1, #13) is in the fluid chamber (Fig. 1, #7) and the collar (Fig. 4, #45) is located in the neck (i.e., wherein the flange is in the fluid inlet port, the side wall extending from the fluid inlet port into the fluid chamber such that the end wall is positioned in the fluid chamber; Fig. 4, #8).
Regarding Claim 10, Noll in view of Neumann makes obvious the brake fluid reservoir in claim 8. Noll further teaches a fastening portion (Fig. 2, #26) that extend around the insert element (Fig. 2, #24) in the form of a bead-like projection to form an interference fit (i.e., wherein the side wall includes a retaining protrusion thereon for securing the filter to the housing; Paragraph 0038).
Regarding Claim 11, Noll in view of Neumann makes obvious the brake fluid reservoir in claim 10. Neumann further teaches snap elements (i.e., retaining protrusion; Fig. 4, #46) which snap into place behind a collar of the filler neck (i.e., wherein an engagement between the retaining protrusion and the inner shoulder prevents an unintended removal of the filter from the housing; Col. 3, Lines 14-20).
Regarding Claim 12, Noll in view of Neumann makes obvious the brake fluid reservoir in claim 11. Neumann further teaches snap elements (i.e., retaining protrusion; Fig. 4, #46) which snap into place behind a collar of the filler neck (i.e., wherein the retaining protrusion is deformed by the inner shoulder as the filter is inserted into the housing, the retaining protrusion moving back to a pre-deformed state after moving past the inner shoulder; Col. 3, Lines 14-20).
Regarding Claim 13, Noll in view of Neumann makes obvious the brake fluid reservoir in claim 8. Noll further teaches that the insert elements (Fig. 2, #24) take the form of tubular hollow bodies and/or cylinders (i.e., wherein the side wall is free from apertures; Paragraph 0038).
Regarding Claim 14, Noll in view of Neumann makes obvious the brake fluid reservoir in claim 8. Noll further teaches that the filter elements are designed to collect dirt particles (Abstract).
Neumann further teaches that the filling filter is located in the filler neck so that it prevents any ingress of dirt into the fluid chamber (i.e., wherein the first and second filter meshes prevent contaminants from passing through the filter into the fluid chamber; Col. 4, Lines 42-51).
Regarding Claim 15, Noll in view of Neumann makes obvious the brake fluid reservoir in claim 8. Neumann further teaches a maximum fill level in the fluid reservoir (Fig. 1, #7 and MAX designation) with the base (Fig. 1, #13) located below the MAX designation and the flange located above (i.e., wherein the fluid chamber has a maximum filling level, the flange aperture being above the maximum filling level, the end aperture being below the maximum filling level; Fig. 1, #8; Col. 2, Lines 29-40).
Regarding Claim 18, Noll in view of Neumann makes obvious the brake fluid reservoir in claim 8. Noll further teaches multiple forms of integral formation of the filter element with its respective component of the fluid reservoir and master brake cylinder or with the insert element including using a plastics casting process (i.e., wherein the flange is integrally molded onto the first filter mesh via an injection-molding process, the end wall being integrally molded onto the second filter mesh via the injection-molding process; Paragraph 0020).
Regarding Claim 20, Noll makes obvious the brake fluid reservoir in claim 1. Noll further teaches that the connecting piece (Fig. 3, #16; Paragraph 0038) has its own filter element (i.e., a second filter mesh) which can be seen in both Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, also as item #22, that covers the second end or “end wall” of the cylindrical body (i.e., an end wall at a second end of the side wall, spaced from the first end in the filling siphon direction; Paragraph 0036), through which outflowing brake fluid flows (i.e., an end aperture extending through the end wall in the filling/siphoning direction into the filter chamber; Paragraph 0040).
Noll does not teach wherein the end wall extends radially inwardly from the second end of the side wall to define the filter chamber.
However, Neumann teaches a base (Fig. 1, #13) that can be seen extending radially inwardly in Fig. 1, marked up below, which has the advantage of allowing the filter element to be injection molded into the base to avoid expensive tooling costs (Col. 2, Lines 41-44).
PNG
media_image4.png
482
662
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the end wall as taught by Noll to extend inwardly to the filter as taught by Neumann because the filter element would be able to be injection molded with the base and would avoid expensive tooling costs.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noll in view of Neumann as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Jeon.
Regarding Claim 16, Noll in view of Neumann makes obvious the brake fluid reservoir in claim 8. Noll further teaches an insert element with a cylindrical body and/or tubular hollow body (i.e., side wall; Fig. 2, #24) with a filter element (i.e., end wall; wherein the end wall and the side wall define a filter chamber of the filter; Fig. 2, #22, Paragraph 0038).
Noll in view of Neumann does not teach the flange aperture permitting fluid to flow through the flange and into the fluid chamber without passing through the filter chamber.
However, Jeon teaches that a ring may be provided on the flange part (Fig. 3, #24) and that a plurality of vent holes may be formed through the ring Col. 3, Lines 24-35) for the purpose of allowing air to pass through as oil is introduced into the reservoir (Col. 3, Lines 12-23). Jeon further teaches that the filter (Fig. 3, #20) may be integrated with the interruption protrusions (Fig. 3, #26) and the vent protrusions (Fig. 3, #28) to define an oil passage therethrough which can reduce manufacturing costs (i.e., teach the flange aperture permitting fluid to flow through the flange and into the fluid chamber without passing through the filter chamber; Fig. 3, dotted lines; Col. 3, Lines 36-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter insert taught by Noll in view of Neumann with the vent protrusions taught by Jeon because it would allow air to pass through during filing and would reduce manufacturing costs.
Regarding Claim 17, Noll in view of Neumann in view of Jeon makes obvious the brake fluid reservoir in claim 16. Jeon further teaches that air passes through the space between the vent protrusions (i.e., wherein the fluid flowing through the flange aperture is at least one of brake fluid and air; Fig. 3, #28; Col. 3, Lines 18-23).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the fluid flowing through the flange aperture is at least one of brake fluid and air” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Claims 21/1, 22/1, 23/1, 24/1, and 25/1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann et al (US Patent No. 8615995 B2) hereinafter Neumann in view of Marvin (US Patent Application No. 20080099085 A1) hereinafter Marvin.
Regarding Claim 1, Neumann teaches in a filling filter (i.e., a filter for a brake fluid reservoir, the filter comprising; Fig. 4, #41) formed with a wall (i.e., a side wall extending from a first end to a second end in a filling/siphoning direction, the side wall at least partially defining a filter chamber through which brake fluid may flow from the first end to the second end of the side wall; Fig. 4, #43) with a base (i.e., an end wall at the second end of the side wall, an end aperture extending through the end wall; Fig. 4, #44) that has filter apertures (i.e., and a second filter mesh covering the end aperture for preventing contaminants from passing through the end aperture; Fig. 4, #42) and a circumferential collar (i.e., a flange extending radially outwardly from the side wall at the first end of the side wall; Fig. 4, #45) located opposite of the filter apertures of the base (Col. 5, Line 53 to Col. 6, Line 2). Neumann further teaches apertures located in the wall of the filter for the purpose of ensuring exchange of air during filling and pressure balancing (i.e., the flange aperture being spaced from the filter chamber; Col. 2, Lines 45-53).
Neumann does not explicitly teach a flange aperture extending through the radially extending flange in the filling/siphoning direction and a first filter mesh covering the flange aperture for preventing contaminants from passing through the flange aperture.
However, Marvin teaches a lower shell (Fig. 2, #116) with apertures (i.e., a flange aperture extending through the radially extending flange in the filling/siphoning direction; Fig. 2, #122) for the purpose of providing an opening for air to be drawn into or expelled from the hydraulic fluid reservoir (Paragraph 0029) that includes an air filter (i.e., a first filter mesh covering the flange aperture; Fig. 2, #108; Paragraph 0018) to prevent contaminants from entering the reservoir (i.e., for preventing contaminants from passing through the flange aperture; Paragraph 0005).
Marvin is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a hydraulic reservoir with an air filter (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filling filter as taught by Neumann with the apertures in the shell with a filter as taught by Marvin because the apertures in the flange would allow air to be drawn into and out of the reservoir without contaminants entering the reservoir.
Regarding Claim 21, Neumann in view of Marvin makes obvious the filter of claim 1. Neumann further teaches that the circumferential collar extends radially outwardly from the side wall and only on one end of the side wall (i.e., wherein the flange only extends radially outwardly from the side wall at the first end of the side wall; Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image5.png
364
380
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, Neumann in view of Marvin makes obvious the filter of claim 1. Marvin further teaches that the apertures are located radially outwardly of the filter chamber (i.e., wherein the flange aperture is located radially outwardly of the filter chamber; Figs. 2 and 3).
PNG
media_image6.png
524
356
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 23, Neumann in view of Marvin makes obvious the filter of claim 1. Marvin further teaches that the apertures are have a longitudinal axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the chamber (i.e., wherein the flange aperture has a longitudinal axis extending parallel to a longitudinal axis of the filter chamber; Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image7.png
350
366
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 24, Neumann in view of Marvin makes obvious the filter of claim 1. Neumann further teaches that the filling filter is integrally formed from a plastic material (i.e., wherein the flange and the side wall are formed as one piece; Fig. 4, Col. 5, Lines 53-60).
Regarding Claim 25, Neumann in view of Marvin makes obvious the filter of claim 1. Marvin further teaches apertures (Fig. 2, #122) for the purpose of providing an opening for air to be drawn into or expelled from the hydraulic fluid reservoir (i.e., wherein the flange aperture permits fluid to flow through the flange without passing through the filter chamber; Paragraph 0029) where it is seen that the air may flow through the aperture without flowing through the chamber (Fig. 2, #124).
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/14/2025 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the addition of new claims 21-15 has been acknowledged.
In view of the arguments, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 5-6 as being unpatentable in view of Noll have been withdrawn. The claims were included in the summary of the rejections by error.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/14/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that Noll does not teach a flange aperture spaced from the filter chamber because the designated aperture extends from the filter chamber through the flange (Arguments filed 07/14/2025, Page 2, Paragraphs 2-3).
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that the flange aperture taught by Noll through the center of the flange is not considered an aperture through the flange because there must be an aperture through the solid circular ring of the flange structure. Additionally, Applicant argues that the interpretation of a blind flange with no openings is too broad and not a reasonable interpretation to one of ordinary skill in the art (Arguments filed 07/14/2025, Page 2, Paragraph 4 to Page 4, Paragraph 2).
Applicant argues, regarding claims 5 and 16, that there is no air travelling between the brake fluid reservoir and brake cylinder of Noll, and thus there is no reason to modify Noll with the vent holes as taught by Jeon (Arguments filed 07/14/2025, Page 5, Paragraphs 1-2).
Applicant argues that dependent claims are allowable because the independent claim 1 is allowable.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the argument for claim 1 about the spacing of the flange aperture from the filter chamber, the instant claim 1 states “the side wall at least partially defining a filter chamber through which brake fluid may flow from the first end to the second end of the side wall”. There is no limitation in the instant claim about the size of the at least partially defined filter chamber nor how distantly spaced the flange aperture is from the filter chamber. As such, the filter chamber may simply be the lower half of the open space defined by the cylindrical side wall of Noll and the aperture is then spaced from the filter chamber. Additionally, if one defines the filter chamber as the space directly below the flange, the filter chamber and flange aperture would be abutting directly, but also considered spaced from each other as they are not sharing a space.
Regarding the arguments for claim 1 about the location of the aperture in the flange, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a flange includes a blind flange. In the IDS filed on 04/04/2024, Eckl (German Patent Application No. DE 19754431 A1) hereinafter Eckl teaches a cover for a brake filter reservoir that blocks filling of the of the sieve for the purpose of preventing the improper filling of the reservoir which can lead to damage to the brake system (Paragraphs 0006-0011, Machine Translation). In this example, the cover acts as a blind flange with the same general purpose of a blind flange which is to prevent flow through a given orifice. As such, a blind flange is not only known in this art, but is also known by the Applicant. Therefore a blind flange interpretation is not an unreasonably broad interpretation of a flange. Additionally, the instant claim continues to only list a single aperture through the described flange, meaning that any aperture is appropriate.
Overall regarding the arguments for the flange and flange aperture, there needs to be more specific language regarding the structure, location, and number of desired apertures to overcome the current prior art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the flange and aperture is a ring shaped flange where the aperture in the center is the only aperture.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments for claims 5 and 16 about no air flowing between the reservoir and the brake cylinder of Noll, when the brake cylinder is completely empty, the air would need to be pushed out through the same filter element in order to ensure that air is not trapped within the brake fluid system after filling. Thus the ability to vent air is important anytime the break fluid level is not above the level of the break cylinder, such as during times of break fluid cycling or when the break system needs repairs. Therefore, it would be reasonable to add the vents taught by Jeon to the filters to ensure that air is not trapped in the brake cylinder during the filling of the cylinder after draining and/or repairs.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments for the dependent claims, the independent claim 1 is not allowable and so the dependent claims are not allowable.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully addressed but they are not persuasive. All other arguments have been indirectly addressed.
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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at (571)272-0579. 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.
/A.A.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777