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 § 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, 16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Selvamani Sundaramahalingam (WO – 2012/164587 A2, from IDS).
As per claim 1, Selvamani discloses Internal Breather For Spring Brake Actuator comprising:
a service brake function and a parking brake function, the spring brake actuator (The spring brake actuator is a combination of a diaphragm chamber for applying service brake and spring chamber for applying spring brake/parking brake., Fig: 7) comprising:
a housing (1, 30, 2, 27, Fig: 7) with a housing base (30, Fig: 7),
a compression spring (12, Fig: 7) and a ram assembly (5, 7, Fig: 7) with a spring brake piston (5, Fig: 7) disposed in the housing (Fig: 7),
wherein the ram assembly (5, 7) separates a spring chamber (9, Fig: 7), in which the compression spring (12) is disposed, from a parking chamber (4, Fig: 7),
wherein the compression spring (12) acts on the ram assembly (5, 7) and provides the parking brake function, in which the spring brake piston (5) shifts through a hole (32, Fig: 7) of the housing base (30) toward a diaphragm (23, Fig: 7) and causing a braking action via a push rod (29, Fig: 7),
a check valve (50, Fig: 7-8) of the ram assembly (5, 7) that allows an air flow to the parking chamber (Fig: 7),
wherein the check valve (50) includes a one-way valve (55, Fig: 7-8) and a supporting element (70, Fig: 7-8) that secures the one-way valve (55) in the ram assembly (5, 7).
As per claim 16, Selvamani discloses wherein when compound braking occurs in which the parking brake function and the service brake function are both activated, high pressure in the service chamber vents through a valve element into the spring brake piston and into the spring chamber, and the high pressure passes through the supporting element and the one-way valve from the spring chamber into the parking chamber until pressure equalization is reached between the parking chamber, and the spring chamber and the one-way valve closes and blocks backflow (Both spring brake and service brake combination application, Page 10, Paragraph 4 – Page 13, Paragraph 4, Fig: 7-8).
As per claim 18, Selvamani discloses wherein the housing base (30) separates a parking brake part (1, Fig: 7) from a service brake part (2, Fig: 7).
As per claim 19, Selvamani discloses wherein the spring brake actuator (1) is a component of a compressed air brake system of a commercial vehicle (This invention relates to an internal breather device and breather valve for a spring brake actuator used in the brake system of a motor vehicle, Page 1, Ln: 3, Fig: 7-8).
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.
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.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selvamani Sundaramahalingam (WO – 2012/164587 A2, from IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krebs et al. (US – 2018/0073500 A1).
As per claim 2, Selvamani discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one-way valve is a duckbill valve.
Krebs discloses Motor/Pump Unit Having A Single Elastic Diaphragm comprising:
wherein the one-way valve is a duckbill valve (non-return valve 15, The non-return valve is constructed from an elastomer material and has a lip valve which is formed as a so-called duckbill valve, [0031], Fig: 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Internal Breather For Spring Brake Actuator of the Selvamani to use the one-way valve in which the one-way valve is a duckbill valve as taught by Krebs in order to provide cost-effective, lighter and has a smaller spatial requirement than mechanical resiliently loaded non-return valves with a barrier member.
As per claim 11, Selvamani discloses wherein the supporting element (70, Fig: 8) is fitted into the ram assembly (5, Fig: 8) by way of a press fitting, a snap fit, a threaded fastening (63, 65, threaded fastening, Fig: 8), an adhesive bonding, a shrink fitting, or a riveting.
As per claim 12, Selvamani discloses wherein the ram assembly (5, 7) and the compression spring (12) are located within a first space defined by the housing base (30) and a first housing cover (1, Fig: 7).
As per claim 13, Selvamani discloses a second housing cover (27, Fig: 7), a service chamber (22, Fig: 7), and a service brake spring (26, Fig: 7), wherein the diaphragm (24, Fig: 7) is located within a second space defined by the housing base (30) and the second housing cover (27), the diaphragm (24) disposed between the service chamber (22) and the service brake spring (26, Fig: 7).
As per claim 20, Selvamani discloses a spring brake actuator (1, Fig: 7-8).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selvamani Sundaramahalingam (WO – 2012/164587 A2, from IDS) as modified by Krebs et al. (US – 2018/0073500 A1) as applied to claims 1-2 and 12-13 above, and further in view of Senthil Kumar Arangarasan (WO – 2020/194078 A1).
As pr claim 14, Selvamani discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the ram assembly includes a further diaphragm and a support piston, and wherein the support piston includes a valve seat, in which the one-way valve is fixed by the supporting element.
Arangarasan discloses Spring Brake Actuator Use In Commercial Vehicle comprising:
wherein the ram assembly (9, 15, 20, Fig: 1) includes a further diaphragm (15, Fig: 1) and a support piston (9, Fig: 1), and wherein the support piston (9) includes a valve seat (Attached figure and Fig: 1), in which the one-way valve (Attached figure and Fig: 1) Is fixed by the supporting element (9, 15, 20, Attached figure and Fig: 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Internal Breather For Spring Brake Actuator of the Selvamani as modified by Krebs to make the ram assembly includes a further diaphragm and a support piston, and wherein the support piston includes a valve seat, in which the one-way valve is fixed by the supporting element as taught by Arangarasan in order to less of susceptible to pressure leakage, easy to install and maintain, by preventing any relative movement between the sealing member and the cylinder housing.
As per claim 15, Arangarasan further discloses a parking piston (9, Fig: 1), which separates the spring chamber (12) from the parking chamber (14), and which includes a valve seat (Attached figure and Fig: 1), in which the one-way valve (Attached figure and Fig: 1) is fixed by the supporting element (9, 15, 20, Attached figure and Fig: 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
618
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10, and 17 are 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.
Prior art and teaching references fail to disclose wherein the supporting element comprises a ring element with an opening at one side and a tapered part at its opposing side, and wherein the tapered part includes a central venting hole, which is connected at a tip of the tapered part to one or a plurality of side holes, that allows an air flow through the supporting element (Claim 3), wherein the supporting element comprises a ring element with an opening at one side and a tapered part at its opposing side, and wherein the tapered part includes at least one hole extending in the same axial direction, offset from a central axis of the supporting element, which extends axially through the tapered part and allows an air flow through the supporting element (Claim 5), wherein the supporting element fixes the duckbill valve in a hole of the ram assembly and provides a reinforcement and a retainment of the duckbill valve and provides a backflow resistance to the duckbill valve (Claim 7), wherein the supporting element has an outer shape corresponding to an inner shape of the duckbill valve (Claim 8), and wherein the one-way valve is a metal bonded duckbill valve, and wherein the supporting element is a ring element and fixes the duckbill valve in a hole of the ram assembly (Claim 9), and wherein the check valve is constructed of only two parts, wherein the two parts are a duckbill valve and the supporting member, wherein the duckbill valve includes elastomeric lips that are self-contained and seal against each other to block flow.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3, claim 6 depends on claim 5 and claim 10 depends on claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A: Stojic (US – 6,148,711),
B: Swander, Jr. et al. (US – 3,813,994),
C: Swander, Jr. et al. (US – 3,712, 181),
D: FISHER et al. (US – 2015/0144440 A1),
E: Park (US – 2014/0305300 A1),
F: Akin et al. (US – 2013/0032437 A1), and
G: Gravier (US – 2004/0060784 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN M AUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5792. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:30 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.
/SAN M AUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616