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 .
An updated search revealed the below cited prior art. As such a new rejection is set forth.
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.
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) 1, 4, 7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,225,920 to Fredrick.
Re-claims 1 and 10, Fredrick teaches a hydraulic unit of a hydraulic power brake system (the master cylinder is capable of actuating a brake system as known in the art), comprising: a connecting plate 34 attaches the hydraulic unit 42 to a bulkhead 14 of a motor vehicle; an additional adapter plate 26 connects the connecting plate 34 to the bulkhead 14 to establish a relative spatial arrangement of the hydraulic unit relative to the bulkhead (see figure 1), the adapter plate 26, for attachment to the bulkhead, includes an adapter plate fastening arrangement (such as bolt, nut and lock washer set 52) is arranged at a predetermined angle. Fredrick teaches a connection arrangement in which it is possible to set a rotation angle of the hydraulic unit 42 in relation to the bulkhead 14, the connecting arrangement is configured as bores, wherein at least one bore is formed as an oblong hole 48, this allows for rotation to a limited degree between the connecting plate 34 and adapter plate 26. However, the oblong hole is formed in the connecting plate 34 rather than the adaptor plate 26.
Forming the oblong hole in the adapter plate 26 would have resulted in the same operation or function, such as allowing for a setting of the rotation angle, and is seen as a rearrangement of parts. It has been determined that when rearranging parts has no effect on the operation of the device, as in this case, the claims are found unpatentable, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that the oblong hole of Fredrick is capable of being located in the adapter plate 26 rather than the connecting plate 34. Essentially form the oblong hole in the adapter plate 26 and a corresponding bolt hole 28 in the connecting plate 34. The hydraulic unit is part of a motor vehicle, as required by claim 10.
Re-claim 4, the adapter plate 26 has a predetermined thickness to set a spacing to the bulkhead 14.
Re-claim 7, the adapter plate 26 includes at least one opening 19 (and surrounding bores) through which the connecting plate is mounted and fastened to a housing of the hydraulic unit.
Re-claim 9, the adapter plate 26 is connected to the connecting plate by a screw or clinch connection. The bolt is interpreted as a screw element, the bolt and nut is interpreted as a clinch connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is allowed.
Claims 5 and 8 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sjoeqvist teaches a master cylinder mounted at an angle relative to a bulkhead.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
December 12, 2025
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616