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 with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 9/25/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image1.png
138
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt).
This is not found persuasive because a unity of invention analysis was performed in the restriction requirement mailed 7/25/25 showing a lack of unity in Claim 1 where the cited WO642 reference teaches such language (p. 3-4 of 7/25/25 action).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/25/25.
Therefore, Claims 1-8 and 10 are pending and under examination.
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 6 recites “oriented spatially” without further recitation to a particular reference or orientation; the claim language has been interpreted broadly in accordance with the presented language.
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.
Claim 8 recites “oriented spatially” 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 1-8, 10 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 1 recites “A brake unit for a hydraulic brake system of a vehicle, comprising: at least one fluid reservoir for the supply of a hydraulic pressure medium to the brake unit:”. This is indefinite. The “brake unit” is comprised of a “fluid reservoir for the supply of a hydraulic pressure medium to the brake unit”, which is circular logic as the “brake unit” is supplied by itself from itself. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
Claim limitation “separate installation component that is connected to the housing” (Claim 1) has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because while “means” is not present the term “component” is sometimes a generic placeholder. The additional language is unclear if this is purely functional or not. Claim 2 further uses functional language that seems to invoke 112(f). The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the insertion direction of the connector piece" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “a securing element which can be passed through the counterpart interface in a transverse direction and which, in a locked position, is engaged with detent action in a detent seat formed on the reservoir interface” (Claim 4) has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because while “means” is not present the term “element” is sometimes a generic placeholder. The additional language is unclear if this is purely functional or not, as “detent” can sometimes be considered a known structure but “securing” is broader than “detent action” or “detent seat”. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 4 recites in part “can be passed through the counterpart interface in a transverse direction”. This is indefinite. The “transverse direction” is indefinite where this is in reference to.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the transverse axis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 depends from Claim 4. Claim 4 discusses a “transverse --direction--“.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Those claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected as being rendered indefinite by virtue of their dependence on an indefinite claim.
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 and 10, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019076642 (on applicant’s IDS), hereinafter WO642.
Regarding Claim 1,
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 brake unit:
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; and
wherein the counterpart interface is arranged on a separate installation component (28, Fig. 1, ex. [0019]) that is connected to the housing.
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. 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 the insertion direction of the connector piece (ex. Figs. 1, 3-6)
PNG
media_image2.png
421
918
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10, as far as they are definite and understood, 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 brake unit:
a housing (with 1) with at least one receiving seat (with 141, ex. Fig. 6a) for receiving a connector piece (ex. 215, ex. Fig. 4) formed on the fluid reservoir;
at least one form-fitting fastening point (with 5, with 51 and with 52) for securing the fluid reservoir in position relative to the housing, wherein the fastening point comprises at least one reservoir interface (with 51), which is formed on the fluid reservoir and at least one counterpart interface (with 52), which is situated outside the fluid reservoir; and
wherein the counterpart interface is arranged on a separate installation component (52; or 52 and 7) that is connected to the housing.
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 annotation below) that is oriented transversely with respect to the insertion direction of the connector piece.
PNG
media_image3.png
742
727
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4,
The brake unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fastening point is secured with a securing element (53) which can be passed through the counterpart interface in a transverse direction and which, in a locked position, is engaged with detent action in a detent seat (with 512) formed on the reservoir interface (ex. [0048, 0055-0057]).
Regarding Claim 5,
The brake unit as claimed in claim 4, wherein the engagement with detent action in the detent seat is reversibly releasable (ex. Figs. 7-8, [0004]).
Regarding Claim 6,
The brake unit as claimed in claim 4, wherein the detent seat is configured to receive a detent portion (ex. 531), which in the locked position is oriented spatially along the transverse axis (ex. an axis of 531 oriented as claimed), of the securing element.
Regarding Claim 7,
The brake unit as claimed in claim 6, wherein the detent seat is aligned with the counterpart interface (ex. Fig. 8B).
Regarding Claim 8,
The brake unit as claimed in claim 4, wherein the detent seat is configured to receive a detent portion (ex. 531), which in the locked position is oriented spatially along the longitudinal axis (ex. an axis of 531 oriented as claimed), of the securing element (ex. Fig. 8B).
Regarding Claim 10,
The brake unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the installation component is a flange element (face of 52, ex. Fig. 5A or 6A; or with 7) which is mechanically connected to the housing and which comprises at least one installation interface (with 524; or with holes for 72) for a screw connection for the purposes of fastening to the vehicle.
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 4-8, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 4, WO642 teaches
The brake unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fastening point is secured with a securing element (83) which can be passed through the counterpart interface in a transverse direction
WO642 does not teach.
and which, in a locked position, is engaged with detent action in a detent seat formed on the reservoir interface.
WO642 is unclear if there is a detent action or detent seat for securing the pin 83.
DE833 teaches
For a brake unit (ex. [0001-0002]),
wherein a fastening point is secured with a securing element (locking pin 3, Figs. 1-8) which, in a locked position, is engaged with detent action in a detent seat formed on a 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 seat of WO642 to be a securing pin and associated seat 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 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), which in the locked position is oriented spatially along the transverse axis (ex. one axis of pin 3 oriented as claimed), of the securing element.
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), of the securing element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those items on the 892 each teach elements of the instant invention.
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 Monday-Wednesday 10am-4pm.
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
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745