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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of invention 1 and Species 1 in the reply filed on 7/23/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 2-4 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/ species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/23/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 line 6, “wherein he pressure source” should be –wherein the pressure source-- . Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the connecting line" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nago (US 20190118901).
In reference to claim 1, Nago teaches an electrohydraulic brake unit (100) for a motor vehicle (paragraph 3, electric motor vehicle), comprising a pressure source (132) designed as an actuator (132, 20A), at least one brake piston (142A, 142B), and a brake circuit (144A, 148, 144), which connects the pressure source (36) and the at least one brake piston to one another, wherein the pressure source, the at least one brake piston and the brake circuit are arranged in a wheel brake. (wheels shown I figure 1)
In reference to claim 5, Nago teaches the actuator (20A, 132) has a piston (132) and the brake circuit has a working chamber (16) and a connecting line (144A), wherein the piston (132) is movably arranged in the working chamber (40), wherein the connecting line (144A) connects the working chamber (16) to the at least one brake piston (142A, 142B).
In reference to claim 10, Nago teaches wherein the electrohydraulic brake unit (10) is designed as a fixed caliper brake. (figure 3)
In reference to claim 11, Nago teaches wherein the electrohydraulic brake unit (100) is designed as a closed system. There is no connections to the system of figure 3.
In reference to claim 12. Nago teaches a vehicle (electric bike), comprising an electrohydraulic brake unit (10) according to claim1.
In reference to claim 13, Nago teaches wherein each wheel of the vehicle is supplied with the electrohydraulic brake unit (front and rear wheels paragraph 42).
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nago (US 20190118901) in view of Roll et al (WO2014195092).
In reference to claim 6, Nago is silent to valves in the system.
Roll et al teaches a brake circuit (figure 1) similar to that of Nago in that an actuator (20, 32) provides actuation for a brake caliper (100) and further teaches the brake circuit has a reservoir (118) and a first switchable check valve (136), wherein the connecting line (62) has a second switchable check valve (124), by means of which the working chamber (38) can be uncoupled from the at least one brake piston (at 100), wherein the reservoir (118) can be uncoupled from the connecting line (62) by means of the first switchable check valve (136) at a point between the second switchable check valve (124) and the working chamber (38).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to have provide Nago with a check valve arrangement as taught by Roll et al to ensure fluid flow in a controlled manner as is recognized by those of skill in the art.
In reference to claim 7, the examiner take official notice that the reseroirs of both references are kept at a low pressure. (brake reservoirs are kept at or near atmospheric pressure.)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nago (US 20190118901) in view of CN109185366.
Nago is silent to a pressure sensor.
CN109185366 teaches a pressure sensor 15 on an output line (adjacent 16).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to have provided the system of Nago with a pressure sensor as taught by CN in order to sense a failure of the brake or a lack of fluid pressure in the system which can provide a malfunction of the brakes as is recognized by those of skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON C KRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-7118. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7AM-4PM; Friday Mornings.
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.
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.
DEVON C. KRAMER
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3746
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741