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 amendments to the claims have eliminated Examiner’s 112 Rejections from the prior action, as such Examiner has withdrawn his 112 rejections. Applicant’s arguments with respect Examiner’s 103 rejection to claim(s) 1 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.
Examiner notes that the concept of dividing a reservoir into multiple chambers is well established in the field as evidence by the prior art cited below. Examiner suggests additional details of how the divided reservoir has the second chamber sitting on top of the first chamber and also disclosing the orientation of the outlets being in a vertical direction, such additional details would overcome the prior art and although would required further search and consideration would potentially lead to an allowance.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/10/25 and 10/29/25 was filed after are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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. 10,131, 334 (hereinafter “Krebs” in further view of Blackman, U.S. Patent 2596119 ( hereinafter “Blackman”)
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.
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.
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.
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