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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurgens (US 20160016567 A1) in view of Nakazawa et al. (US 20170190328 A1, hereinafter Nakazawa), Jarrard et al. (US 6304078 B1, hereinafter Jarrard), and Bruwer et al. (US 20210285795 A1, hereinafter Bruwer).
[AltContent: textbox (S)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (BP)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
358
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Jurgens teaches a stroke sensing apparatus (fig. 4) for a brake pedal BP (title and fig. 4 above), comprising:
a pump housing (being a housing portion of hydraulic block 2 having an inner space comprising space S in fig. 4 above) having an inner space (comprising space S), a mounting hole part 18 and a flow path part (pump housing 2 is referred to by Jurgens as a “hydraulic block,” which is well-known as having a flow path – see evidentiary references EP 3069945 A2, at ¶34, and US 20190121385 A1, at the abstract), which is configured to control a flow of a brake fluid (at least by controlling a direction of the flow);
[AltContent: textbox (H)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
436
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (H)]
PNG
media_image3.png
464
582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
an electronic control unit (ECU) housing H (see figs. 2-3 above; also see ¶35) having an inner space (¶43 teaches that control unit 1 has a housing 20 with a protruding part 19 containing a sensor 8, and fig. 2 teaches that the sensor 8 is mounted on a PCB 6; accordingly, the inner space of the housing H contains the sensor 8 and PCB 6; the Examiner notes that while ¶43 states that the housing of the control unit 1 is element “2,” reference character “2” has already been used in ¶35 and fig. 3 to describe the hydraulic block 2, and ¶37 and fig. 3 teach that the housing of the ECU 1 is element “20”; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that ¶43 contains a typographical error and that the housing of the ECU comprises element 20, and not element “2”) and coupled to a side of the pump housing (see fig. 3);
a pedal rod 12 movable by an operation of the brake pedal (¶36 and fig. 4);
a magnet part 17/23 (¶36 explains that magnet 23 is element 17) disposed in the inner space of the pump housing, connected to the pedal rod 12 and movable together with the pedal rod (¶36);
a sensor 8 disposed in the inner space of the ECU housing H (sensor 8 is in the ECU housing as described above) and spaced apart from the magnet part (¶43 teaches that the sensor 8 is entirely enclosed by protruding part 19, meaning that there is a distance between sensor 8 and the magnet part 23);
a printed circuit board (PCB) part 6 disposed in the inner space of the ECU housing (as discussed above), wherein the sensor is mounted on the PCB part (fig. 2).
Jurgens does not explicitly teach wherein the flow path part controls a flow of brake oil,
wherein the ECU housing is detachably coupled to the side of the pump housing,
a pole piece part mounted in the mounting hole part of the pump housing, disposed above and spaced apart from the magnet part, and configured to transmit, to the sensor, a magnetic flux which changes as a relative position of the magnet part changes with respect to the pole piece part,
wherein the pole piece part has one end facing the sensor, and an opposite end facing the magnet part, and
wherein the pole piece part has a cylindrical shape.
Nakazawa teaches a pump housing 5a-5b (figs. 2-3) comprising a flow path part (one of oil passages 11) that controls the flow of brake oil (¶27-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jurgens to operate based on brake oil, as taught by Nakazawa, since brake oil is a well-known, widely available and/or reliable fluid for braking (additionally or alternatively, such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing braking forces for another for the predictable result that braking is still successfully carried out).
Regarding the claimed detachability,
it has been held that making something separable is obvious if there is a motivation for separating that structure. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”). See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jurgens as modified such that the ECU housing is detachably coupled to the side of the pump housing for maintenance purposes.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (MH)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image4.png
470
566
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Jarrard teaches a pole piece part 40 (or 42) mounted in the mounting hole part MH (fig. 2 above shows a mounting hole MH in housing 12 for each of the pole pieces 40, 42), disposed above (as broadly recited) and spaced apart from the magnet part 20, and configured to transmit, to the sensor 52, a magnetic flux (paragraph bridging cols. 3-4) which changes as a relative position of the magnet part changes with respect to the pole piece part (col. 4 lines 17-21),
wherein the pole piece part has one end facing the sensor, and an opposite end facing the magnet part (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jurgens as modified to have at least one pole piece part mounted in at least one mounting hole part, spaced apart from the magnet part, and configured to transmit, to the sensor, a magnetic flux which changes as a relative position of the magnet part changes with respect to the pole piece part, wherein the pole piece part has one end facing the sensor, and an opposite end facing the magnet part, as taught by Jarrard, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of transmitting flux to the sensor for another for the predictable result that a linear position is still successfully detected.
Regarding the cylindrical shape,
Bruwer teaches the use of flux guides (title; fig. 6), wherein the flux guides 11.1-11.4 have substantially circular cross sections (the Examiner notes that the flux guides are used with Hall sensors 6.1-6.4 – see ¶54-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jurgens as modified such that the flux guides (elements 40, 42 from Jarrard) are configured with substantially circular cross sections as taught by Bruwer, since such modifications would be mere changes in shape for the predictable result that a position is still successfully detected (additionally or alternatively, having pole pieces would help deliver magnetic flux to the sensor so that the sensor can sense the change in flux better).
Jurgens as modified teaches wherein the pole piece part (from Jarrard) is mounted in the mounting hole part (this can be considered the hole part 18 of Jurgens or a mounting hole part MH from Jarrard, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the hole part 18 in the pump housing of Jurgens to have holes MH from Jarrard) of the pump housing, disposed above (as broadly recited) the magnet part.
As to claim 3, Jurgens as modified teaches wherein the opposite end of the pole piece part is spaced apart from the magnet part (fig. 1 of Jarrard).
As to claim 4, Jurgens as modified teaches wherein the pole piece part 40 (Jurgens) is made of a magnetic material (in Jurgens, the paragraph bridging cols. 3-4 teaches “Pole pieces 40 and 42 are made from a magnetically permeable material such as stainless steel“; www.merriam-webster.com defines “magnetic” as “magnetized or capable of being magnetized”; since stainless steel can be magnetized, Jarrard’s pole piece is made of a magnetic material).
As to claim 16, Jurgens as modified teaches wherein a surface of the pole piece part is painted or anti-rust painted (the limitation that the pole piece part is painted or anti-rust painted is directed to an intended use of the claimed apparatus, and the pole piece part of Jarrard is capable of being painted or anti-rust painted).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurgens in view of Nakazawa, Jarrard, and Bruwer as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kim (US 20220205812 A1).
As to claim 15, Jurgens teaches wherein the magnet part 23 includes
a magnet body 23.
Jurgens as modified does not explicitly teach a magnet mounted in the magnet body (the magnet body 23 of Jurgens is a magnet itself, so it does not have another magnet mounted in itself that can read on the claimed “magnet”), moved as the magnet body is moved, and spaced apart from the pole piece part, and
a bracket having one side connected to the magnet body and an opposite side mounted on the pedal rod.
Kim teaches a displacement sensor comprising a rod 50, 41 and a magnet part 120, 130, 160 that includes a magnet body 160, a bracket 130 (¶48 teaches that part 41 is slid into hole 131 of bracket 130) and a magnet 120,
wherein the magnet part includes the magnet body 160,
the magnet 120 mounted in the magnet body 160, moved as the magnet body is moved (see figs. 5-6), and
a bracket 130 having one side connected to the magnet body 160 and an opposite side mounted on the pedal rod 50, 41 (the bracket also supports the magnet – see figs. 5-6 and ¶45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jurgens as modified to configure the apparatus to have a magnet part comprising the magnet, a magnet body covering the magnet, and a bracket connecting the magnet and magnet body to the pedal rod so as to provide support to the magnet body that covers the magnet, as taught by Kim so as to securely attach the magnet part to the pedal rod and allow the magnet part to move more reliably with the pedal rod (fig. 4 of Jurgens shows that the magnet 23 and the pedal rod are not directly attached, or Jurgens is silent as to whether the magnet and pedal rod are directly attached; additionally or alternatively, such a modification would have been a simple substitution of one method of providing a movable and detectable magnetic part).
Jurgens as modified teaches wherein the magnet part 23 (Jurgens), 130, 160 (Kim) includes
a magnet body 160 (Kim),
a magnet 23 (Jurgens) mounted in the magnet body, moved as the magnet body is moved, and spaced apart from the pole piece part 40 (Jarrard), and
a bracket 130 (Kim) having one side connected to the magnet body and an opposite side mounted on the pedal rod.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending elected claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) for rejection.
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 RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
