To maNotice 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 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1,4-6, 10-11, 14-17, 21-29 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.
Claim 1 and 11 recites the following limitation “projecting outwardly substantially transversely to an axis of the filler neck and approximately horizontally”. The terms “substantially and approximately” in claim 1 and 11 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” or “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result it remains unclear as to what degree off perfectly horizontal would be acceptable or what degree off transverse to the axis would be acceptable to meet the substantially or approximately language recited in the claim.
Claims 4-6, 10, 14-17, and 21-29 are all 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) 1, 4-7, 10, 11 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourlon, French Patent Publication FR2908097 A1 in view of Krebs, U.S. Patent 10,131, 334 (hereinafter “Krebs” in further view of Blackman, U.S. Patent 2596119 ( hereinafter “Blackman”) in further view of Domas, WIPO Publication 2006/027505 (hereinafter “Domas”).
In Reference to Claim 1:
Bourlon discloses a fluid container (Figure 1) to be mounted on a hydraulic unit (Figure 2) comprising: a container housing defining at least one internal chamber (See, Annotated Figure 1) ; the container housing having an outer side wall defining at least two apertures (See, Annotated Figure ); at least two connection parts (See, Annotated Figure) aligned parallel to one another and projecting relative to the outer side wall of the fluid container; at least two internal channels (Tr1 and Tr2) for connecting the at least one internal chamber to the unit (Figure 2); at least two receiving seats of the unit to receive the connection parts.
PNG
media_image1.png
541
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
496
833
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bourlon fails to disclose two shut-off devices for shutting off the internal channels when the connection parts)are is-outside the receiving seats; wherein the connection parts and the shut-off devices are combined in a separate module, which is connected to the container housing, closes the apertures, and is disposed on the outside of the container housing; and wherein the connection between the module and the container housing is materially bonded.
However, in the same field of endeavor Krebs discloses the use of a shut off device (12 and 15 and 16) for shutting off the internal channel of a tank/reservoir (4) when the connection parts (5) are outside the receiving seat of the hydraulic unit is a separate module (Examiner notes that the valving is in a separate module referred to as a cartridge which inserts into the opening of the housing and sits disposed outside the container housing) and wherein the connection between the module and the container housing is materially bonded. Examiner notes that the claim language of the module and the container being materially bonded is a product by process claim and therefore the process is not given patentable weight. Furthermore, within Examiner’s specification Examiner states other types of connection are likewise permissible and therefore equivalent.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Bourlon such that it include the teachings of Krebs, specifically by including the shut off valving attached to the output ports of Bourlon because as discussed in Krebs such modification would allow for shorter maintenance downtime of the brake unit by effectively eliminating the need to drain the reservoir.
Krebs fails to disclose wherein two connection parts and two shutoff device are combined in a separate module closes the apertures.
However, Examiner notes such a modification would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to further modify Bourlon such that the shut off devices of Krebs which include connection parts be manufactured in a single module for both shut off devices because such a modification would allow for quicker installation and removal by allowing for simultaneous installation and removal.
Bourlon as modified fails to disclose housing defining at least two internal chambers and each connection part defining an internal channel for connecting one of the at least two internal chambers.
However, in the same field of endeavor, master cylinders with reservoirs, Examiner notes Blackman discloses a twin master cylinder with a reservoir, wherein the reservoir housing contains a divisional wall thereby forming at least two internal chambers each chamber being connects to a respective cylinder through a channel. See, Figure 14 and 15.
Examiner notes it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to further modify Bourlon, such that the reservoir contains a divisional wall between the two outlets (passages to the master cylinder) because it is well known in the field of endeavor that such walls provide the benefits of ensuring that each brake cylinder receives fluid when a vehicle is placed on pitched grade and as a result the entire braking device and reservoir are tilted.
Bourlon as modified fails to explicitly disclose the newly amended limitation of a filler neck disposed along an axis and two connection parts aligned parallel to one another and projecting outwardly substantially transversely to the axis of the filler neck and approximately horizontally. Although Bourlon does disclose the two connection parts aligned parallel to one another projecting outwardly in a horizontal direction (as seen in the Figures of Bourlon and annotated above) , Bourlons filler port is located along a side wall with an axis substantially parallel to the connection ports.
However, in the same field of endeavor master cylinder braking devices, Domas discloses a reservoir containing a filler neck and wherein the filler neck is offset from the master cylinder housing by a filling passageway/channel and said filler neck is substantially perpendicular to the master cylinder.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the reservoir housing of Bourlon such that the filler neck is offset with a filler passageway/channel and said filler neck is perpendicular in orientation to master cylinder (and as such the filler neck axis would be traverse with two connection parts) as taught by Domas because such a modification as discussed in Domas provides the distinct advantage of limiting leakage when the vehicle is placed on trucks for transport and also has the additional advantage of allowing for superior absorption of pedestrian impact.
In Reference to Claim 4:
Bourlon as modified further discloses wherein the shut- off devices each further comprise a spring-loaded valve body which is arranged at least partly in the internal channel such that, as the connection parts are is received in the receiving seats, the valve body is supported in the receiving seats and forced in the direction of the internal chamber, thereby hydraulically unblocking the internal channel. See, Krebs Figure 1.
In Reference to Claim 5:
Bourlon as modified further discloses herein the module has, in addition to the connection parts, at least one separate fastener for fixing the fluid container on the unit. See, Annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
593
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 6:
Bourlon further discloses wherein the fluid container has at least two half-shells, which are connected to one another in a parting plane, and the connection part is aligned parallel to the parting plane. See, Figure 1.
In Reference to Claim 7:
Bourlon further discloses wherein the fluid container has a filler neck for receiving a supply of fluid and the connection part is aligned transversely in relation to the alignment of the filler neck. See, Figure 1.
In Reference to Claim 10 Bourlon further discloses wherein the unit is a unit for generating and/or modulating a brake pressure in a hydraulic motor vehicle brake system.
In Reference to Claim 11:
Bourlon discloses a brake device (Figure 4) for a hydraulic motor vehicle brake system comprising: a hydraulic unit (Figure 2) for generating and/or modulating a brake pressure; and a fluid container (Figure 1) to be mounted on the hydraulic unit, the fluid container comprising a container housing defining at least one internal chamber; the container housing having an outer side wall defining an aperture; at least two connection parts aligned parallel to one another and projecting relative to the outer side of the fluid container;an at least two internal channels for connecting the at least one internal chamber to the unit;at least two receiving seats of the unit to receive the connection parts. See, Annotated Figure Above
Bourlon fails to disclose at least two shut-off devices for shutting off the internal channels when the connection parts are outside the receiving seats; wherein the connection parts and the shut-off devices are combined in a separate module, and wherein the connection between the module and the container housing is materially bonded.
However, in the same field of endeavor Krebs discloses the use of a shut off device (12 and 15 and 16) for shutting off the internal channel of a tank/reservoir (4) when the connection parts (5) are outside the receiving seat of the hydraulic unit is a separate module (Examiner notes that the valving is in a separate module referred to as a cartridge which inserts into the opening of the housing and sits disposed outside the container housing) and wherein the connection between the module and the container housing is materially bonded. Examiner notes that the claim language of the module and the container being materially bonded is a product by process claim and therefore the process is not given patentable weight. Furthermore, within Examiner’s specification Examiner states other types of connection are likewise permissible and therefore equivalent.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Bourlon such that it include the teachings of Krebs, specifically by including the shut off valving attached to the output ports of Bourlon because as discussed in Krebs such modification would allow for shorter maintenance downtime of the brake unit by effectively eliminating the need to drain the reservoir.
Krebs fails to disclose wherein two connection parts and two shutoff device are combined in a separate module closes the apertures.
However, Examiner notes such a modification would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to further modify Bourlon such that the shut off devices of Krebs which include connection parts be manufactured in a single module for both shut off devices because such a modification would allow for quicker installation and removal by allowing for simultaneous installation and removal.
Bourlon as modified fails to explicitly disclose the newly amended limitation of a filler neck disposed along an axis and two connection parts aligned parallel to one another and projecting outwardly substantially transversely to the axis of the filler neck and approximately horizontally. Although Bourlon does disclose the two connection parts aligned parallel to one another projecting outwardly in a horizontal direction (as seen in the Figures of Bourlon and annotated above) , Bourlons filler port is located along a side wall with an axis substantially parallel to the connection ports.
However, in the same field of endeavor master cylinder braking devices, Domas discloses a reservoir containing a filler neck and wherein the filler neck is offset from the master cylinder housing by a filling passageway/channel and said filler neck is substantially perpendicular to the master cylinder.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the reservoir housing of Bourlon such that the filler neck is offset with a filler passageway/channel and said filler neck is perpendicular in orientation to master cylinder (and as such the filler neck axis would be traverse with two connection parts) as taught by Domas because such a modification as discussed in Domas provides the distinct advantage of limiting leakage when the vehicle is placed on trucks for transport and also has the additional advantage of allowing for superior absorption of pedestrian impact.
In Reference to Claim14:
Bourlon as modified further discloses wherein the shut- off devices each further comprise a spring-loaded valve body which is arranged at least partly in the internal channel such that, as the connection parts are is received in the receiving seats, the valve body is supported in the receiving seats and forced in the direction of the internal chamber, thereby hydraulically unblocking the internal channel. See, Krebs Figure 1.
In Reference to Claim 15:
Bourlon as modified further discloses herein the module has, in addition to the connection parts, at least one separate fastener for fixing the fluid container on the unit. See, Annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
593
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 16:
Bourlon further discloses wherein the fluid container has at least two half-shells, which are connected to one another in a parting plane, and the connection part is aligned parallel to the parting plane. See, Figure 1.
In Reference to Claim 17:
Bourlon further discloses wherein the fluid container has a filler neck for receiving a supply of fluid and the connection part is aligned transversely in relation to the filler neck. See, Figure 1.
In Reference to Claim 22 and 27:
Bourlon as modified further discloses wherein the closed state the valve body projects outwardly from the connection part such that when the connection part is inserted into the receiving seat, the valve body is supported on a bottom of the receiving seat and is thereby forced in the direction of the internal chamber to unblock the internal channel. See, annotated Figure directly above which shows that the valve body is biased into the closed position by a spring and an end face brushing against open the valve against the bias.
In Reference to Claim 23 and 28:
Bourlon further discloses wherein the shut-off device further comprises a sealing body attached to an end of the valve body adjacent to the internal chamber, the sealing body configured to rest on a valve seat formed in a mouth region of the internal channel to block the internal channel in a closed state, and to secure the valve body within the connection part in the closed state. See, Annotated Figure above which shows a seal that engaged the valve seat when the reservoir is lifted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 and 29 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. Claim 24 and 29 recite the limitation a pair of eyelets formed integrally with the module, the eyelets configured to receive a transverse pin for fixing the fluid container on the unit, at least one of the eyelets having spring tabs. The prior art fails to disclose such feature and it would not be obvious to modify the prior art with such featuring given the already present attachment means.
Claim 25 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 .The prior art fails to disclose this configuration of the connection parts and it would not have been obvious to modify the prior art to establish such a configuration.
Claim 26 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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