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 Amendment/Arguments
This office action is in response to applicant’s reply filed 3/31/26. Amended Claims 1-10 are pending, with claim 9 withdrawn.
Regarding the previous 112(b) rejections, applicant’s amendment to claim 1 remedies the previous issue with “brake unit”.
Regarding the previous claim 1 language of “separate installation component...”, applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image1.png
985
869
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and the claim language will not be interpreted under 112(f).
Regarding the previous claim 3 antecedent basis issue, this has been remedied by the claim amendments.
Regarding the previous claim 4 language of “a securing element...”, this has been remedied by the claim amendments.
Regarding the previous claim 4 issue regarding “transverse direction”, this has been remedied by the claim amendments.
Regarding the previous claim 6 issue regarding a “transverse axis”, this has been remedied by the claim amendments.
Regarding the previous claim 8 issue regarding “the longitudinal axis”, this has been remedied by the claim amendments.
Regarding the previously applied prior art of WO642, applicant argues (p. 7-11) that WO642 does not teach the amended claim language of “defines at least one fully enclosed passage opening extending through the counterpart interface and configured to secure the fluid reservoir in the position relative to the housing via insertion of a pin-like securing element through the at least one fully enclosed passage opening.”. Examiner agrees that WO642 no longer anticipates the claimed invention, as the drawings and description of WO642 do not clearly show or describe the claimed “at least one fully enclosed passage opening extending through the counterpart interface”. Examiner notes that applicant’s arguments concerning colorized drawing notes referenced in applicant’s arguments have not been considered due to regrettable limitations in the Office’s software tools (only grayscale available). Examiner also notes that some of applicant’s arguments concerning the shape and sizing of the adapter plate 28 in WO642 are not persuasive as, as applicant points out, the detailed drawings of 28 are not clear as to full details of the shape of 28.
Regarding the previously applied prior art of Alili,
(begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image2.png
619
649
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Inasmuch as applicant has amended the claims, the application of the prior art of Alilli to the amended claims will be amended, as detailed below.
Regarding the 103 with DE833, applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image3.png
170
619
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees; Ruffer provides a teaching of the amended claim language to modify the base WO642 reference thereby rendering the claimed invention obvious, as discussed in the office action below.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The phrase “fully enclosed passage opening” (ex. Claim 1) does not appear in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner notes:
The preamble has been interpreted as limiting to the structure of the invention (MPEP 2111.02 I).
Claim 1 recites “connector piece formed on the fluid reservoir” which is considered part of the fluid reservoir and not as invoking 112(f) given the lack of “means” and the language of “formed on” connoting structure in conjunction with “connector”.
Claim 1 recites “pin-like securing element” was considered for interpretation under 112(f) but given the lack of “means” and the language of “pin-like” connoting structure, the language was ultimately not interpreted under 112(f).
Claim 7 recites “aligned with” without further recitation to a particular reference or orientation; the claim language has been interpreted broadly in accordance with the presented language.
In Claim 10, “flange element” was considered for interpretation under 112(f) but given the absence of “means” and the term “flange” has a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for a structure to one of ordinary skill in the art, the language was ultimately not interpreted under 112(f).
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.
Claims 6-8 are 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 6 recites in part “a detent portion of the pin-like securing element and wherein, in a locked position, the detent portion of the pin-like securing element extends from the pin-like securing element along the latitudinal axis”. This is indefinite. The “detent portion of the pin-like securing element” establishes the detent portion as part of the pin-like securing element but then the “the detent portion of the pin-like securing element extends from the pin-like securing element” has the “detent portion” as now separate from the “pin-like securing element”; the detent portion extending from itself (the “pin-like securing element”) is indefinite.
Claim 8 recites in part “a detent portion of the pin-like securing element and wherein, in a locked position, the detent portion of the pin-like securing element extends from the pin-like securing element along the longitudinal axis”. This is indefinite. The “detent portion of the pin-like securing element” establishes the detent portion as part of the pin-like securing element but then the “the detent portion of the pin-like securing element extends from the pin-like securing element” has the “detent portion” as now separate from the “pin-like securing element”; the detent portion extending from itself (the “pin-like securing element”) is indefinite.
Claim 7 is rendered indefinite by virtue of its dependence on indefinite claim 6.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alili et al. (US 2020/0216049, on applicant’s IDS).
Regarding Claim 1,
A brake unit (Figs. 1-10) for a hydraulic brake system of a vehicle, comprising:
at least one fluid reservoir (2) for the supply of a hydraulic pressure medium to the hydraulic brake system:
a housing (with 5) with at least one receiving seat (with 526 of 525) for receiving a connector piece (with 51) formed on the fluid reservoir;
at least one form-fitting fastening point (with 61, 62) for securing the fluid reservoir in position relative to the housing, wherein the fastening point comprises at least one reservoir interface (61), which is formed on the fluid reservoir and at least one counterpart interface (surface 13 of block 1), which is situated outside the fluid reservoir;
wherein the counterpart interface is arranged on a separate installation component (1) that is connected to the housing, and
defines at least one fully enclosed passage opening (for 62, [0045]) extending through the counterpart interface (surface 13) and configured to secure the fluid reservoir in the position relative to the housing via insertion of a pin-like securing element (62) through the at least one fully enclosed passage opening.
Regarding Claim 2,
The brake unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the installation component is provided for the installation of the brake unit on the vehicle (ex. [0047, 0061-0063]).
Regarding Claim 3,
The brake unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fluid reservoir has a filling port (221) for the filling of the fluid reservoir with the hydraulic pressure medium, the filling port and the reservoir interface being arranged substantially at opposite ends of the fluid reservoir along a longitudinal axis (example annotations below) that is oriented transversely with respect to the insertion direction of the connector piece.
PNG
media_image4.png
874
899
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 1-8, and 10, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019076642 (on applicant’s IDS), hereinafter WO642, in view of DE 102017215833 (on applicant’s IDS, using US 20200384970 (also on applicant’s IDS) as English translation), hereinafter DE833.
Regarding Claim 1, WO642 teaches
A brake unit (ex. Figs. 1-10) for a hydraulic brake system of a vehicle, comprising:
at least one fluid reservoir (30) for the supply of a hydraulic pressure medium to the hydraulic brake system:
a housing (12) with at least one receiving seat for receiving a connector piece (for one of 53-55) formed on the fluid reservoir;
at least one form-fitting fastening point (with 80, 81 and with 28) for securing the fluid reservoir in position relative to the housing, wherein the fastening point comprises at least one reservoir interface (with 80, 81), which is formed on the fluid reservoir and at least one counterpart interface (with 28), which is situated outside the fluid reservoir;
wherein the counterpart interface
is arranged on a separate installation component (28, Fig. 1, ex. [0019]) that is connected to the housing; and
defines at least one passage opening (for 83, note Fig. 1, [0019]) extending through the counterpart interface and configured to secure the fluid reservoir in the position relative to the housing via insertion of a pin-like securing element (83) through the at least one passage opening.
WO642 does not teach
defines at least one fully enclosed passage opening extending through the counterpart interface and configured to secure the fluid reservoir in the position relative to the housing via insertion of a pin-like securing element through the at least one fully enclosed passage opening.
DE833 teaches
For a brake unit (ex. [0001-0002]),
defines at least one fully enclosed passage opening (note locking pin 3 through 8, ex. Figs. 1-4) extending through a counterpart interface (of 2) and configured to secure the fluid reservoir in the position relative to a housing (1, see also 4 with 6 and 5 with 7) via insertion of a pin-like securing element (3) through the at least one fully enclosed passage opening,
the pin-like securing element (locking pin 3, Figs. 1-8) is engaged with detent action in a detent seat formed on the reservoir interface (9 or 10, ex. [0028-0029])
“This permits a robust construction which is particularly simple to install and does not require separate positioning of the component during the installation. A simple through hole is sufficient for this in the vehicle component. This also promotes clear haptic and visual monitoring of the correct fit of the locking pin.” - [0007], see also [0006-0016] for example.
Since both references are directed to brake units, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pin and associated seat and opening of WO642 to be a securing pin and associated seats and opening as taught by DE833 in order to provide pin that is particularly simple to install and does not require separate positioning of the component during the installation and which promotes clear haptic and visual monitoring of the correct fit of the locking pin.
Regarding Claim 2,
The brake unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the installation component is provided for the installation of the brake unit on the vehicle (WO642 - ex. Fig. 1, [0015, 0019]).
Regarding Claim 3,
The brake unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fluid reservoir has a filling port (with 59) for the filling of the fluid reservoir with the hydraulic pressure medium, the filling port and the reservoir interface being arranged substantially at opposite ends of the fluid reservoir along a longitudinal axis (example annotation below) that is oriented transversely with respect to an insertion direction of the pin-like securing element (WO642 - ex. Figs. 1, 3-6)
PNG
media_image5.png
421
918
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4,
The brake unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one fully enclosed passage opening (example annotations below) extends through the counterpart interface along a latitudinal axis that is transverse to a longitudinal axis of the fluid reservoir extending from an end of the fluid reservoir having the fluid reservoir interface to an opposite end of the fluid reservoir, and wherein, in a locked position, the pin-like securing element is engaged with detent action in a detent seat (DE833 - 9 or 10, ex. [0028-0029]) formed on the reservoir interface.
PNG
media_image6.png
843
810
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
424
869
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
552
1035
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5,
The brake unit as claimed in claim 4, wherein the engagement with detent action in the detent seat is reversibly releasable (DE833 - ex. [0028]).
Regarding Claim 6,
The brake unit as claimed in claim 4, wherein the detent seat is configured to receive a detent portion (DE833 - ex. 18, Fig. 1) of the pin-like securing element and wherein, in a locked position, the detent portion of the pin-like securing element extends from the pin-like securing element along the latitudinal axis (ex. one axis of pin 3 oriented as claimed and example annotated below).
PNG
media_image9.png
431
977
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7,
The brake unit as claimed in claim 6, wherein the detent seat is aligned with the counterpart interface (WO642 as modified).
Regarding Claim 8,
The brake unit as claimed in claim 4, wherein the detent seat is configured to receive a detent portion (DE833 - ex. 18), which in the locked position is oriented spatially along the longitudinal axis (ex. one axis of pin 3 oriented as claimed in direction of into/out of the page as depicted in Fig. 1 or from left/right in Fig. 3 for example), of the securing element.
Regarding Claim 10,
The brake unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the installation component (28, Fig. 1, ex. [0015]) is a flange element which is mechanically connected to the housing and which comprises at least one installation interface for a screw connection for the purposes of fastening to the vehicle.
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 MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Thursday 9-3pm (part-time).
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)272-8648. 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.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights