DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12, 16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boehm et al (US# 2020/0340563).
Boehm et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim including; an electromechanical brake booster for a vehicle brake system, comprising an actuating element 92/96 which is couplable to an electric motor via a transmission 72/84, a housing 64 in which the actuating element is displaceably received, and at least one separate sliding element 112 , wherein the at least one sliding element is selectively mounted [0018][0019] directly to a portion of an outside circumferential surface of the actuating element 92/96, such that the at least one sliding element does not fully encircle the actuating element 92/96, and is arranged between the housing and the actuating element, when viewed in cross-section, wherein the sliding element is configured to facilitate smooth displacement of the actuating element within the housing by reducing friction and guiding movement, and is positioned to directly contact both the actuating element and the housing during operation. [0018][0019]
Regarding claim 2, the at least one sliding element is configured to mount the actuating element in the housing in a displaceable and slidable manner.
Regarding claim 3, the at least one sliding element 112 is arranged in a direction transversely to a longitudinal axis of the actuating element between the housing 64 and the actuating element 92/96.
Regarding claim 4, the at least one sliding element 112 is arranged between a surface (surfaces of 96), of the actuating element 92/96, running substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the actuating element, and the housing. Note the element 112 engages surface 104 of the housing.
Regarding claim 5, the at least one sliding element 112 protrudes at least in some sections from a surface of the actuating element 92/96.
Regarding claim 6, the actuating element has a ribbed structure 96 at least in some sections, wherein the at least one sliding element 112 is arranged on the ribbed structure and/or wherein the ribbed structure defines a surface of the actuating element.
Regarding claim 7, the at least one sliding element 112 extends substantially in a direction of the longitudinal axis of the actuating element. Note the element 112 engages surface 104 of the housing.
Regarding claim 8, the at least one sliding element 112 has a sliding section (surface engaging 104) and a fastening section (other surfaces) which holds the at least one sliding element on the actuating element. [0019]
Regarding claim 10, the at least one sliding element and/or a fastening section of the at least one sliding element is fixedly connected to the actuating element. [0019]
Regarding claim 12, the at least one sliding element is produced from plastics. [0019]
Regarding claim 16, the electromechanical brake booster has two sliding elements which are arranged spaced apart from one another in a direction transversely to a longitudinal axis of the actuating element. Figures 3 and 4. [0040]
Regarding claim 18, Boehm et al disclose subassembly for a vehicle brake system having at least one electromechanical brake booster according to claim 1, and at least one brake cylinder 68 which is couplable fluidically to at least one brake circuit of the vehicle brake system. [0036]
Regarding claim 19, Boehm et al disclose a vehicle brake system 46 having a subassembly according to claim 18.
Claim(s) 1-10, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2020-46056.
JP ‘056 discloses all the limitations of the instant claim including; an electromechanical brake booster 1 for a vehicle brake system, comprising an actuating element 31/71/81 which is couplable to an electric motor 2 via a transmission 4, a housing 35 in which the actuating element is displaceably received, and at least one separate sliding element 72, wherein the at least one sliding element is selectively mounted directly to a portion of an outside circumferential surface of the actuating element 31/71/81 (the circumferential surface of portion 71 of the actuating element), such that the at least one sliding element does not fully encircle the actuating element 31/71/81, and is arranged between the housing and the actuating element, when viewed in cross-section (figure 5), wherein the sliding element is configured to facilitate smooth displacement of the actuating element within the housing by reducing friction and guiding movement, and is positioned to directly contact both the actuating element and the housing during operation. [0043][0046]
Regarding claim 2, the at least one sliding element is configured to mount the actuating element in the housing in a displaceable and slidable manner.
Regarding claim 3, the at least one sliding element 72 is arranged in a direction transversely to a longitudinal axis of the actuating element between the housing 35 and the actuating element 31.
Regarding claim 4, the at least one sliding element 72 is arranged between a surface of the actuating element 31, running substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the actuating element, and the housing. Note the surface of element 31 at the base of roller 72. Figure 5.
Regarding claim 5, the at least one sliding element 72 protrudes at least in some sections from a surface of the actuating element 31.
Regarding claim 6, the actuating element 31/71 has a ribbed structure 74 at least in some sections, wherein the at least one sliding element 72 is arranged on the ribbed structure and/or wherein the ribbed structure defines a surface of the actuating element. Note [0053] suggests 74 may be formed on the pin 71.
Regarding claim 7, the at least one sliding element 72 extends substantially in a direction of the longitudinal axis of the actuating element. Note the element 72 has a diameter extending In the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 8, the at least one sliding element 72 has a sliding section (exterior) and a fastening section (74) which holds the at least one sliding element on the actuating element.
Regarding claim 9, the at least one sliding element 72 and/or a fastening section 74 of the at least one sliding element is configured to be latched to the actuating element. Note 74/75.
Regarding claim 10, the at least one sliding element and/or a fastening section of the at least one sliding element is fixedly connected to the actuating element.
Regarding claim 16, the electromechanical brake booster has two sliding elements 72 which are arranged spaced apart from one another in a direction transversely to a longitudinal axis of the actuating element. Figure 5.
Regarding claim 17, the actuating element 31/32 has at least one tooth row section (perimeter of gear 43) which is couplable to the electric motor via the transmission.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hong et al (US# 2022/0203950).
Hong et al disclose a sliding element 1500 for an electromechanical brake booster, wherein the electromechanical brake booster comprises an actuating element which is couplable to an electric motor 1200 via a transmission 1300 and a housing 1100, in which an actuating element 1400 is displaceably received, wherein a sliding element 1500 is defined by a length and a width, and wherein the length is longer than the width (figure 2), the sliding element including a sliding surface (exterior) and a fastening section (portion cooperating with 1420) disposed opposite the sliding surface, the fastening section having a projection (portion between seal 1425 and fixing member 1422) that engages the actuating element 1400 such that the length of the sliding section extending parallel to a longitudinal axis of the actuating element, and wherein the sliding element is configured to be arranged between the housing 1100 and the actuating element 1400/1420.
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(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehm et al (US# 2020/0340563).
Boehm et al further disclose that the at least one sliding element and/or the actuating element is produced by a molding operation [0019], but lack the more specific injection-molding of the claim. The Examiner takes official notice that injection molding of plastics is well known in the art for efficiently producing plastic parts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select injection molding, as known in the art, for the molding of Boehm et al as an obvious and efficient means of forming the plastic contact shoe.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehm et al (US# 2020/0340563) in view of Rodriguez et al (US# 2016/0169386).
Boehm et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to the disclosure of actuating element being produced from fibre-reinforced plastics. Rodriguez et al disclose a braking device and further teach an actuating device 1 made of fiber filled phenolic resin. [0033] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use fiber filled phenolic resin such as taught by Rodriguez et al for the piston of Boehm et al as the material is suitable for aluminum housings such as that of Boehm et al [0016].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehm et al (US# 2020/0340563) in view of Yamaguchi et al (US# 2002/0095934).
Boehm et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to the disclosure of the at least one sliding element being produced from a non-fibre-reinforced plastics. Boehm et al discloses plastic as a cost effective choice [0019]. Yamaguchi et al disclose a braking device and further teach a plastic element made of PTFE, PTFE containing carbon fiber or PTFE containing graphite. [0077] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plastic or a plastic modified with fiber or graphite such as taught by Yamaguchi et al dependent on the desired economy, strength and friction qualities. Since Boehm et al indicates cost in using plastic, plain plastic would be the most economical choice.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehm et al (US# 2020/0340563) in view of Uhlig et al (US# 2024/0149854).
Boehm et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to the disclosure of a lubricant is arranged and/or is operatively positioned between the housing and the actuating element and/or the at least one sliding element. Uhlig et al disclose a similar brake device and further teach lubricant between the sliding element 92 and housing [0039][0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize lubricant on the contact shoes of Boehm et al, as taught by Uhlig et al to reduce friction, thereby increasing efficiency and/or durability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Boehm et al, both piston 92 and the anti-twist protection 96 are taken to together as the recited actuating element. Regarding the sliding and guiding properties, note [0018][0019] of Boehm et al which indicate that the shoe material is selected for the sliding properties.
Regarding JP ‘056, Applicant argues the differences between sliding and rolling. It is noted that while the roller 72 rolls within groove 35, it has a sliding interaction with surface 71a of the actuator 31/71/81 as the actuator is guided in the groove for smooth movement [0046]. The claim language does not appear to specifically require sliding interaction between the sliding element and the housing. It is also noted that portions 31/71/81 are taken together as the recited actuator, and roller 72 is directly mounted to portion 71 of the actuator 31/71/81.
Regarding Hong et al and claim 20, Applicant argues that element 1500 is not a sliding element. Piston 1500 slides back and forth in the cylinder during operation, and therefore reads on the sliding element specified by the claim. Applicant argues that 1500 is a piston that is not a discrete sliding element interposed between an actuating element and a housing. It is maintained that “sliding element” merely requires an element that slides. It is further maintained that 1500 is an element that slides, and is configured to be arranged between actuating element 1400/1420 and housing 1100. Applicant further argues “Hong does not disclose a separate sliding element as required by claim 20. Instead, the piston (element 1500) is directly received in the housing (modulator block 1100), and any sliding or sealing function is performed by piston sealing members (1511, 1512) and a bush member (1520), not by a discrete sliding element as claimed.” This is not persuasive as the piston is the separate discrete sliding element and sliding or sealing function is performed by its sealing members (1511, 1512). Regarding the fastening section, note the sliding element 1500 further including a sliding surface (exterior) and a fastening section (portion cooperating with 1420). Applicant further argues a further distinction of claim 20, however these arguments appear to be based on the piston 1500 being the actuating element, whereas the rejection relies upon 1400/1420 for the recited actuating element.
Regarding claim 11, it is noted that Applicant has not adequately traversed the statement of official notice. MPEP 2144.03(C) states “To adequately traverse a finding based on official notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.” As the statement is not specifically traversed, the statement is taken as admitted prior art. MPEP 2144.03 (C). Also note US #2024/0123958 teaches multi-component injection molding of brake components.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant argues that the prior art does not specify fibre-reinforced plastics. [0033] of Rodriguez et al discloses “the primary piston is made of a fiber filled phenolic resin. This resin, which is a thermohardening plastic resin, has the advantage of having a coefficient of expansion close to that of aluminum, material out of which the master cylinder is made.”
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues that Boehm does not specify whether the plastic is fibre-reinforced of non-fiber-reinforced, and Yamaguchi does not discuss sliding elements between an actuating element and a housing. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Yamaguchi et al discloses a resin element made of PTFE containing carbon fiber or graphite, which is in a sliding interaction with pump elements in a braking environment. The disclosure “containing carbon fiber or containing graphite” suggests resin carbon fiber or resin without fiber and instead having graphite. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plastic or a plastic modified with graphite such as taught by Yamaguchi et al dependent on the desired economy, strength and friction qualities. Since Boehm et al indicates cost in using plastic, plain plastic would be the most economical choice.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant argues that Uhlig does not disclose lubricant between a housing and an actuating element or sliding element as claimed in claim 15. This is not persuasive as Uhlig specifically teaches lubricant between a sliding element and a housing. [0039][0040] indicate that the microprofiling stores lubricant between the contact shoe 92 and the sliding surface 100 of housing 60.
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 BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 PM.
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.
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
BTK