DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 30 of the claim, the phrase “comprises a liquid inlet valves” should be “comprises liquid inlet valves”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18 and 23 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 7 recites “wherein the fourth transmission subassembly comprises a plurality of liquid inlet valves”. It is not clear if these are the same valves as the “liquid inlet valves” of parent claim 1, or are additional or different inlet valves.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the fifth transmission subassembly comprises a plurality of liquid outlet valves”. It is not clear if these are the same valves as the “liquid outlet valves” of parent claim 1, or are additional or different outlet valves.
Claim 11 recites “the second pressurizing control valve” on line 22 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “a first pressurizing control valve and a second pressurizing control valve of the first transmission subassembly”. It is not clear if these are the same valves as the “a first pressurizing control valve and the second pressurizing control valve” previously recited in the claim, or are additional or different control valves.
Claim 11 recites “liquid inlet valves of the fourth transmission subassembly”. It is not clear if these are the same valves as the “liquid inlet valves of a fourth transmission subassembly” previously recited in the claim, or are additional or different inlet valves.
Claim 14 recites “a first wheel cylinder control valve of a third transmission subassembly”. It is not clear if this is the same valve as the “a first wheel cylinder control valve of the third transmission subassembly” previously recited in the claim, or is an additional or different valve.
Claim 17 recites “a plurality of liquid inlet valves”. It is not clear if these are the same valves as the “liquid inlet valves of the fourth transmission subassembly” of parent claim 11, or are additional or different inlet valves.
Claim 17 recites “a plurality of liquid outlet valves”. It is not clear if these are the same valves as the “liquid outlet valves of the fifth transmission subassembly” of parent claim 11, or are additional or different outlet valves.
Claim 23 recites “a plurality of liquid inlet valves”. It is not clear if these are the same valves as the “liquid inlet valves” of parent claim 19, or are additional or different inlet valves.
Claim 23 recites “a plurality of liquid outlet valves”. It is not clear if these are the same valves as the “liquid outlet valves” of parent claim 19, or are additional or different outlet valves.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 19-22 are allowed.
Claims 7-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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
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