DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 12 be found allowable, claim 21 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 11 each recite “wherein the second direction faces directly into an opening of the oil fill port”. The claim was amended as of 4/22/2026 to include the language of “directly into”. This description is not supported by the originally filed specification. The word “directly” or “direct” does not appear in the specification. The specification states in various places that the second direction is the direction that the opening of the oil fill port faces (see pgh. 0007, 0034, 0109) or that the oil fill port faces upwards (see pgh. 0011, 0038, 0081, 0109). Accordingly, in light of the specification, the second direction would be upward in fig. 2 from the oil fill port, which is actually directly out of the opening of the oil fill port rather than directly into the opening.
Further, it is unclear what sense of “directly” is meant by the claim language, because typical definitions of “directly” are not supported by the originally filed disclosure. For example, the term “directly” in a structural sense convey a lack of intermediate physical components, but this structural relationship does not appear to be literally true, as the master cylinder 40 and fluid reservoir 80 intervene between the location of the first direction and the opening of the oil fill port, at least. Accordingly, it is unclear at present where the support for “the second direction faces directly into an opening of the oil fill port” exists in the originally filed application.
Dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected due to dependency on a rejected base claim for failing to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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, 3-7, 11-12, 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leiber et al. (U.S. 2018/0065605).
Regarding claim 1, Leiber discloses (figs. 1-3) An integrated brake apparatus of a vehicle (see claim 1 at least) and comprising:
a first housing (GH1);
a brake master cylinder (10) configured to generate a first hydraulic pressure (standard master cylinder operation) under action of a brake pedal (BP), wherein the brake master cylinder comprises a first cylinder body (10 is called a “piston-cylinder unit”, thus the cylinder body is the cylinder of the piston-cylinder unit), and wherein the first cylinder body and the first housing are integrally formed (fig. 2 as shown);
a motor (M) disposed on the first housing (disposed “on” the housing GH1 at the bottom thereof);
a pump (11) configured to generate a second hydraulic pressure when driven by the motor (11 is called a “pressure supply device”, thus it generates pressure), wherein the pump comprises a pump housing, and wherein the pump housing and the first housing are integrally formed (as shown, pump 11 is housed within GH1 and does not contain a separate housing, thus it is “integrally formed” at least functionally if not literally);
a second housing (GH2) coupled to the first housing (as shown);
a valve apparatus (valving including 15a, 15b at least) disposed in the second housing (as shown), wherein the valve apparatus is configured to: enable either the first hydraulic pressure or the second hydraulic pressure to be supplied to a wheel brake; and adjust a strength of either the first hydraulic pressure or the second hydraulic pressure supplied to the wheel brake (see pgh. 0075, enables and adjusts pressure supplied to wheel brakes);
a fluid reservoir (VB) comprising an oil fill port (at the top of VB in fig. 2); and
an electronic control unit (ECU),
wherein the first housing, the second housing, and the electronic control unit are arranged in a first direction (
A
2
) perpendicular to a second direction (pointing to the left in fig. 2 from axis
A
2
, see annotated figure), and wherein the second direction faces directly into an opening of the oil fill port (see annotated figure, the second direction “faces directly into” the opening in the oil fill port from the side).
PNG
media_image1.png
800
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 2 of Leiber.
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 21, Leiber discloses (figs. 1-3) the motor is disposed on a first side that is of the first housing and that is away from the electronic control unit (as shown, motor at the bottom and ECU at the top relative to GH1)
Regarding claims 4 and 22, Leiber discloses (figs. 1-3) a rotation axis of the motor is perpendicular to an axis of the first cylinder body (as shown, rotation axis of the motor is along
A
2
while the cylinder body is along
A
1
).
Regarding claims 5 and 23, Leiber discloses (figs. 1-3) an included angle between a rotation axis of the motor and an axis of the first cylinder body is 60 degrees to 120 degrees (as shown, 90 degrees).
Regarding claims 6 and 24, Leiber discloses (figs. 1-3) an oil outlet (one of 15a, 15b) is disposed on a surface of a third side (see fig. 3, side facing to the left, corresponding to out of the page in fig. 2) that is of the second housing and that is away from the electronic control unit (the third side facing out of the page is “away” from the electronic control unit in that it does not point directly toward it as in up on the page in fig. 2), and wherein the oil outlet is configured to supply either the first hydraulic pressure or the second hydraulic pressure to the wheel brake (see pgh. 0075 at least).
Regarding claims 7 and 25, Leiber discloses (figs. 1-3) a first oil passage port (the other of 15a, 15b) is disposed on the second housing (as shown), and wherein the first oil passage port is connected to the fluid reservoir (indirectly, via 16 at least).
Regarding claim 11, Leiber discloses (figs. 1-3) A vehicle (abstract at least), comprising: a brake pedal (BP) configured to swing around a first axis extending in a first direction when pressed by a driver1; and an integrated brake apparatus comprising:
a first housing (GH1);
a brake master cylinder (10) configured to generate a first hydraulic pressure (standard master cylinder operation) under action of a brake pedal (BP), wherein the brake master cylinder comprises a first cylinder body (10 is called a “piston-cylinder unit”, thus the cylinder body is the cylinder of the piston-cylinder unit), and wherein the first cylinder body and the first housing are integrally formed (fig. 2 as shown);
a motor (M) disposed on the first housing (disposed “on” the housing GH1 at the bottom thereof);
a pump (11) configured to generate a second hydraulic pressure when driven by the motor (11 is called a “pressure supply device”, thus it generates pressure), wherein the pump comprises a pump housing, and wherein the pump housing and the first housing are integrally formed (as shown, pump 11 is housed within GH1 and does not contain a separate housing, thus it is “integrally formed” at least functionally if not literally);
a second housing (GH2) coupled to the first housing (as shown);
a valve apparatus (including 15a, 15b at least) disposed in the second housing (as shown), wherein the valve apparatus is configured to: enable either the first hydraulic pressure or the second hydraulic pressure to be supplied to a wheel brake; and adjust a strength of either the first hydraulic pressure or the second hydraulic pressure supplied to the wheel brake (see pgh. 0075, enables and adjusts pressure supplied to wheel brakes);
a fluid reservoir (VB) comprising an oil fill port (at the top of VB in fig. 2); and
an electronic control unit (ECU),
wherein the first housing, the second housing, and the electronic control unit are arranged in the first direction2 perpendicular to a second direction (see annotated figure above), and
wherein the second direction faces directly into an opening of the oil fill port (see annotated figure above, the second direction “faces directly into” the opening in the oil fill port from the side).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 8-9 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leiber et al. (U.S. 2018/0065605) in view of Maruo et al. (U.S. 2016/0264114).
Regarding claims 8 and 26, Leiber does not appear to disclose the first oil passage port supplying oil to the master cylinder. In the same field of endeavor of brake control devices, Maruo teaches (figs. 1-2) a brake control device including a reservoir (4), a master cylinder (50), and an oil passage port (one of 502P, 502S) supplying oil to the brake master cylinder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided oil passage ports from the reservoir to the master cylinder as suggested by Maruo to continually ensure the correct amount of fluid in the master cylinder, since some is sent along the path to the wheel brakes, recirculated back to the reservoir as needed, etc., so therefore the master cylinder needs to be provided with fluid to maintain pedal feel and performance.
Regarding claims 9 and 27, Leiber does not appear to disclose the location of the second and third oil passage ports. Maruo teaches a plurality of second oil passage ports are disposed on the first housing (e.g. 501S, 501P), wherein a plurality of third oil passage ports are disposed on the second housing (e.g. 120d, 120c), and wherein the second oil passage ports are connected to the third oil passage ports (see fig. 1,7, ports 501S,P attached to the master cylinder which is entirely contained within the first housing, while 120c,d are within the second housing due to proximity to the solenoids 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the second and third oil passage ports on their respective housings to provide the ports adjacent the components they operate with, thereby achieving efficiency. Since the second ports are associated with the master cylinder which is provided in the first housing, these ports can also be in the first housing. Since the third ports are associated with the solenoids which are provided near the second housing, these ports can be provided in the second housing. This alleviates having addition tubing or connections to interconnect the various ports. Further it is noted that each device operates in the same manner when viewed in combination as they operated separately, namely each operates as a brake control device with slightly different design, but upon viewing them in combination, the prior art suggests the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leiber et al. (U.S. 2018/0065605) in view of Maruo et al. (U.S. 2016/0264114) and Nagashima et al. (U.S. 5607207).
Regarding claims 10 and 28, Leiber does not appear to disclose a seal plate. In the same field of endeavor of brake control devices, Nagashima teaches (figs. 1, 2, 6,7) a brake apparatus including a first housing (21,31,41), a second housing (VA), and a sealing plate component (50) disposed between the first housing and the second housing, wherein the sealing plate component comprises a plurality of through holes (107, 115, 120-123) corresponding to positions of the second oil passage ports and the third oil passage ports (“flow communication passages”. See also fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the sealing plate as suggested by Nagashima to prevent leakage of hydraulic fluid at the interface between the housing pieces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends on pages 9-10 of the remarks that Leber discloses the first and second directions are parallel rather than perpendicular, and therefore does not disclose "a first direction perpendicular to a second direction, and wherein the second direction faces directly into an opening of the oil fill port". As shown in the annotated figure above, after defining axis A2 as the first direction in Leiber, there exists a mathematically infinite number of “second directions” that are perpendicular to the first direction, all of which lie in a plane having the direction A2 as the normal direction of that plane. Upon selecting left as the second direction for example, this direction is “perpendicular to the first direction” as claimed. Upon defining the second direction as shown above, this second direction points towards, intersects, and faces directly into an opening of the fill port, from the right side thereof, thereby arriving at the claimed invention. The claims at present do not preclude such an interpretation of the “second direction” or “faces directly into”, notwithstanding the 112(a) rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM - 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.
/DAVID MORRIS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
1 Standard brake pedal structure. The pedal is connected to tappet 27, see figs. 3,5. Accordingly, the swing axis is either up and down in fig. 2, or left and right in fig. 2 in order to properly compress the tappet.
2 The recited components are all “arranged” in some manner in three dimensional space relative to one another, thus they are all “arranged in the first direction” as well, e.g. vertically on the page or horizontally on the page, at least.
Prosecution Insights