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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4 and 11 have been amended to depend from claim 1 instead of withdrawn claim 18. Claims 4 and 11 are therefore no longer withdrawn from consideration.
Applicant's traversal the election by original presentation set forth in the last office action is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the combination and subcombination are not distinct as the combination requires the particulars of the combination. Applicant states “Claim 1 explicitly recites detailed features of the contact spring system that are the same core features recited in claim 18”, however, “core features” does not speak to the particulars of the combination. It is also noted that the determination of distinctness for election by original presentation is based on the originally filed claims which received the first action on merits. The subcombination claim presented 2/17/2026 contains many particularly not presented in the original claims such as “a housing formed of electrically insulating material and having a plurality of channels extending through the housing”, “the channels of the housing being dimensioned and arranged to electrically isolate each contact element from the others and to captively retain each contact element by an internal shoulder while allowing axial compression”. The features “the contact elements being arrange parallel to one another along longitudinal axes,” and “a projecting length being at least 2 mm in an uninstalled state” are also not required by the combination claim, indicating that the combination does not rely upon these details for its patentability.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by VanTassel et al (US# 2022/0069503).
VanTassel et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim including; a brake system 10 for a motor vehicle, comprising an electronic control unit 30 with a control circuit board ([0029] circuit board of ECU), a hydraulic block 14 through which hydraulic channels extend and which has a brake cylinder bore (bore receiving master cylinder 16, Fig 1), a piston which is displaceable in the brake cylinder bore by a brake pedal [0020][0025], and a pedal travel sensor with a sensor circuit board 60 [0025], wherein the pedal travel sensor is configured to detect the position of the piston in the brake cylinder bore, a contact spring system 50 connecting the control circuit board to the sensor circuit board for transmission of signals [0029], in a non-destructively detachable fashion, wherein the contact spring system further comprises: a housing 52 formed of electrically insulating material [0023] and having a plurality of vertical channels 54, a plurality of electrical contact elements 100 received in the channels and electrically isolated from one another by the housing, each contact element being individually preloaded and elastically compressible along a longitudinal axis extending through a corresponding channel [0031], each contact element having first 128 and second 110 contact portions projecting from opposite sides of the housing to bear under preload against respective electrical contact pads of the control circuit board and/or the sensor circuit board, and each contact element being axially retained within the housing by a shoulder or a stop surface 170 within the corresponding channel such that the element is captively held while remaining longitudinally compressible.
Regarding claim 5, the contact elements 100 each have a longitudinal axis, wherein the contact elements are arranged parallel to one another.
Regarding claim 6, the contact elements 100 are springs [0031] made of conductive material [0026].
Regarding claim 7, the contact springs 100 are each elastically compressible along a longitudinal axis that is perpendicular to the electrical contact pad [0024], against which the corresponding contact element bears under preload.
Regarding claim 13, the contact elements 100 having a longitudinal axis, wherein the contact elements are perpendicular to the electrical contact pads, against which the contact elements bear in each case under preload.
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.
Claims 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanTassel et al (US# 2022/0069503) in view of Kaurala (US# 2014/0193987).
VanTassel et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claims with exception to, in an uninstalled state of the contact spring system, the projecting length being at least 2 mm (claim 4) or at least 5 mm (claim 11). Kaurala discloses a similar connection device and further teach projecting lengths of .1-5 mm [0031]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum projecting length through routine design or experimentation, including lengths of at least 2 and 5 mm as suggested by Kaurala, to ensure the connection is maintained for the expected amount of movement and tolerances between the connected components.
Claims 8-9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanTassel et al (US# 2022/0069503) in view of Forwerck et al (US# 10124778).
Regarding claim 8, VanTassel et al further disclose the hydraulic block being a monolithic part (Figure 1), but lack the details of a depression which is accessible from the outside and which extends in the direction of the brake cylinder bore and into which the pedal travel sensor is inserted in a non-destructively removable fashion. Forwerck et al disclose a similar brake device and further teach a depression (space between protrusions 68 Fig 10, or aperture 65, Fig 11) which is accessible from the outside and which extends in the direction of the brake cylinder bore and into which a pedal travel sensor 16 is inserted in a non-destructively removable fashion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sensor and mounting configuration taught by Forwerck for the sensor of VanTassel et al as an obvious means of providing the sensor in a removable manner which ensures proper orientation.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Forwerck teach the pedal travel sensor 16 having a base 46 the inside of which is abutted by a sensor portion 44 of the sensor circuit board 42, which is electrically connected via a connecting portion to a contacting portion (at 76) of the sensor circuit board, which contacting portion is arranged on a top side of the pedal travel sensor. Figure 6.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanTassel et al (US# 2022/0069503) in view of Schliebe (US# 6375473).
Regarding claim 10, VanTassel et al further suggest contact pads [0024], but do not indicate that they are circular. Schliebe discloses a similar device and further teach circular contact pads 104. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use circular contact pads, such as taught by Schliebe, for the contacts of VanTassel et al as an obvious design choice which provides the expected results of facilitating contact between the contact element and the sensor board.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the restriction requirement, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed above under the Election/Restrictions heading.
Applicant argues that VanTassel does not disclose contact elements that are individually preloaded and elastically compressible along a longitudinal axis as recited by claim 1. This is not persuasive as [0031] indicates that “The cantilevered arrangement of the beam 124 enables the beam 124 to function as a spring member in that the beam 124 can flex at the knee 124. Preferably, the electrical connector 100 is designed such that a biasing force forces the bottom portion 128 of the foot portion 126 against the contact surface of the circuit board 60 providing a constant contact load” and “The flex of this spring biasing feature will permit contact with the circuit board 60 independent of dimensional variations affecting the precision of the interfacing electrically conductive surface of the circuit board 60.” This indicates that the elements are preloaded and elastically compressible.
Applicant further argues that “VanTassel's connectors achieve spring bias through lateral flexing of a cantilevered beam at a knee portion-not through axial compression along a longitudinal axis as required by claim 1.” This is not persuasive as the flexing at the knee portion in VanTassel results in a shortening or compressing of the connector element 100 in the longitudinal direction and therefore reads on the recited the “elastically compressible along a longitudinal axis” as recited by claim 1.
Applicant further argues that “VanTassel does not disclose contact elements that are "axially retained within the housing by a shoulder or a stop surface within the corresponding channel such that the element is captively held while remaining longitudinally compressible" as recited by claim 1. VanTassel's shoulder 170 serves a different purpose. As VanTassel discloses, "[t]he locking arrangement between the barbs 150 and the shoulders 170 prevents the attachment portion 140 from moving leftward out of the groove 54'." See VanTassel, paragraph [0036]. This shoulder arrangement merely prevents withdrawal of the connector from the groove via an interference fit-it does not captively hold the contact element while allowing continued longitudinal compressibility.” This is not persuasive as “the locking arrangement between the barbs 150 and the shoulders 170 prevents the attachment portion 140 from moving leftward out of the groove 54” indicates that the elements are retained such that the longitudinal axis remains in position. And the disclosed flex of [0031] indicates that the elements 100 remain longitudinally compressible. It is maintained that the rejections are proper.
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 BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 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.
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
BTK
Prosecution Insights