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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Remark, filed 2nd March 2026, with respect to the Drawing Objection drawn to showing “every feature of the invention specified in the claims” have been fully considered and are persuasive. This Drawing Objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant contends that the claim amendments, filed 2nd March 2026, overcome the previous rejection. This is persuasive but a new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, is made as appears below.
Drawings
Drawing Objection drawn to Figure 11 is maintained from Non-Final Rejection, filed 1st December 2025. Figure 11 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. The Applications specification discloses “Figure 11 shows the view XI according to Figure 8 in a state installed on the vehicle” (see Specification Page 13). As Figure 8 is properly marked as “related art” and Figure 11 is merely a separate view of Figure 8, it should also be marked as “related art”. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenfuss (US 20160061276 A1) in view of Weh et. al. (US 20210129816 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Schoenfuss discloses an interface device (2) for a component of a functional system of a vehicle brake system for fastening a pedal-travel sensor coupled to the component (5) and for fastening the component (5) on an associated vehicle (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3), the interface device (2) has a first contact surface to be positioned on the component (6) (see Fig. 4, Fig. 6. Fig. 8) and has a second contact surface to be positioned on the vehicle (12) (see Fig. 4, Fig. 2), the second contact surface is set at an oblique angle (w1) with respect to the first contact surface (see Fig. 4), wherein the interface device (2) has a first through hole (11) (see Fig. 4, Fig. 6, Fig. 8) and a second through hole (11) (see Fig. 4, Fig. 2), the master cylinder extending through the first and second through holes (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 4 Fig. 8).
Schoenfuss does not disclose an adapter having an adapter mandrel.
Weh teaches an adapter (20) having an adapter mandrel (20), the adapter mandrel (20) extending through a through hole (30) in a clearance fit (see Annotated Fig. 3 below) for guiding the interface device around the pedal-travel sensor (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Annotated Fig. 3 below).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the adapter having an adapter mandrel and extending through a hole in a clearance fit of Weh with the interface device of Schoenfuss in order to protect the Master Cylinder and brake system electronics from outside contaminants such as dirt and moisture (see US 20210129816 A1 [Weh]; [0012], [0031]).
PNG
media_image1.png
524
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
Regarding Claim 2, Schoenfuss does not explicitly disclose the second contact surface being set at an oblique angle with respect to the first contact surface, within the range 1° to 44°.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (See MPEP 2144.05.II.A) (citing In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Additionally, "a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation." (See MPEP 2144.05.II.B).
In the present case, Schoenfuss recognizes the relative angles between the first and second surfaces as a result effective variable to adapt mounting of the master cylinder (brake system component) to different vehicle bodies or bulkheads. A such, it would have been obvious to perform routine experimentation to optimize the angle (w1) of Schoenfuss to an angle within the range 1° to 44° to adapt to “changing inclination angles of the bulkhead and/or of the dashboard carrier” in order to optimize space usage within the vehicle’s compartments (see US 20160061276 A1 [Schoenfuss]; [0034], [0078]).
Regarding Claim 3, Schoenfuss does not explicitly disclose the second contact surface being set at an oblique angle with respect to the first contact surface, within the range 5° to 30°.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (See MPEP 2144.05.II.A) (citing In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Additionally, "a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation." (See MPEP 2144.05.II.B).
In the present case, Schoenfuss recognizes the relative angles between the first and second surfaces as a result effective variable to adapt mounting of the master cylinder (brake system component) to different vehicle bodies or bulkheads. A such, it would have been obvious to perform routine experimentation to optimize the angle (w1) of Schoenfuss to an angle within the range 5° to 30° to adapt to “changing inclination angles of the bulkhead and/or of the dashboard carrier” in order to optimize space usage within the vehicle’s compartments (see US 20160061276 A1 [Schoenfuss]; [0034], [0078]).
Regarding Claim 4, Schoenfuss does not explicitly disclose the second contact surface being set at an oblique angle with respect to the first contact surface, within the range 8° to 25°.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (See MPEP 2144.05.II.A) (citing In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Additionally, "a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation." (See MPEP 2144.05.II.B).
In the present case, Schoenfuss recognizes the relative angles between the first and second surfaces as a result effective variable to adapt mounting of the master cylinder (brake system component) to different vehicle bodies or bulkheads. A such, it would have been obvious to perform routine experimentation to optimize the angle (w1) of Schoenfuss to an angle within the range 8° to 25° to adapt to “changing inclination angles of the bulkhead and/or of the dashboard carrier” in order to optimize space usage within the vehicle’s compartments (see US 20160061276 A1 [Schoenfuss]; [0034], [0078]).
Regarding Claim 5, Schoenfuss discloses wherein the second contact surface (12) (see Fig. 4, Fig. 2) is arranged relative to the first contact surface (6) (see Fig. 4, Fig. 6, Fig. 8) at the oblique angle (w1), the angle being adjustable prior to final fastening of the interface device on the vehicle (see Fig. 4, [0034], [0078]).
Regarding Claim 6, Schoenfuss discloses wherein the first (6) (see Fig. 4, Fig. 6, Fig. 8) contact surface and/or the second contact surface (12) (see Fig. 2, Fig. 4) is formed as a substantially planar plate (see Fig. 2, Fig. 4, Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 7, Schoenfuss does not disclose wherein the first contact surface and/or the second contact surface is a deep-drawn part.
Weh teaches the adapter contact surface part of an interface device being a deep-drawn part (see [0035]).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of an interface device surface part being deep-drawn of Weh with the interface device of contact surface of Schoenfuss in order to reduce cost and increase manufacturability of the interface device.
Regarding Claim 8, Schoenfuss discloses wherein the first contact surface (6) (see Fig. 4, Fig. 6, Fig. 8) and the second contact surface (12) (see Fig. 4, Fig. 2) are together in one piece (see Fig. 3).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenfuss (US 20160061276 A1) as modified by Weh et. al. (US 20210129816 A1) in Claim 1, above, further in view of Tarandek (US 9663083 B2).
Regarding Claim 9, Schoenfuss modified by Weh teaches the interface device of claim 1.
Schoenfuss modified by Weh does not teaches the first and second contact surfaces being two pieces.
Tarandek discloses a brake system interface device with a first (4) (see Fig. 1) and second contact (2) (see Fig. 1) surface being two pieces (see 1:67, 2:1-8).
It would have been obvious to combine the two-piece interface device (2 & 4) of Tarandek with
the angled interface device (6) of Schoenfuss modified by Weh in order to make it easier to install the brake system into the vehicle and create a seal to prevent contaminants (see US 9663083 B2 [Tarandek]; 1:37-44, 2:15-20)
Regarding Claim 10, Schoenfuss modified by Weh teaches the interface device of claim 1.
Schoenfuss modified by Weh does not explicitly teach at least two stay bolts situated on the second contact
Tarandek discloses two bolts (16) situated on the second contact surface (2) (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to combine the two bolts (16) from the brake system interface device of Tarandek with the threaded holes (14) (see Fig. 2) in the angled interface device (6) of Schoenfuss modified by Weh in order to securely attach the interface device to the vehicle bulkhead.
Regarding Claim 11, Schoenfuss modified by Weh teaches the interface device of claim 1.
Schoenfuss modified by Weh does not explicitly teach a first through hole on the first contact surface and a concentrically situated second through hole on the second contact surface.
Tarandek teaches a first through hole (see Fig. 1) in the first contact surface (4) concentrically situated with respect to the second through hole (18) in the second contact surface (2) (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to combine the concentric holes in the first and second surface of a
brake interface device of Tarandek with the angled vehicle interface device (6) of Schoenfuss modified by Weh in order to allow passage of brake system components through the interface.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenfuss (US 20160061276 A1) in view of Weh et. al. (US 20210129816 A1), further in view of Adachi (US 20190232928 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Schoenfuss discloses a functional system of a vehicle brake system, comprising: a component (5), and an interface device (2) configured to fasten the pedal-travel sensor on the component and to fasten the component (5) on an associated vehicle, the interface device having a first contact surface (6) (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8) positioned on the component (5) and having a second contact surface (12) (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 4) to be positioned on the vehicle, wherein the second contact surface (12) (see Fig. 4, Fig. 2) is set at an oblique angle (w1) with respect to the first contact surface (6) (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4, Fig. 6, Fig. 8) wherein the interface device (2) has a first through hole (11) (see Fig. 4, Fig. 6, Fig. 8) and a second through hole (11) (see Fig. 2, Fig. 4), the master cylinder extending through the first and second through holes (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 4 Fig. 8).
Schoenfuss does not disclose a pedal-travel sensor coupled to the component or an adapter having an adapter mandrel.
Weh teaches an adapter (20) having an adapter mandrel (20), the adapter mandrel (20) extending through a through hole (30) in a clearance fit (see Annotated Fig. 3 below) for guiding the interface device around the pedal-travel sensor (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Annotated Fig. 3 below).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the adapter having an adapter mandrel and extending through a hole in a clearance fit of Weh with the interface device of Schoenfuss in order to protect the Master Cylinder and brake system electronics from outside contaminants such as dirt and moisture (see US 20210129816 A1 [Weh]; [0012], [0031]).
Schoenfuss modified by Weh does not teach a pedal-travel sensor coupled to the component.
Adachi teaches a component (2) with a pedal-travel sensor coupled to the component (3) (see Fig. 1), and an interface device (17a) (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
It would be obvious to combine the teachings of a pedal-travel sensor coupled to the component of Adachi with the functional system of a vehicle brake system of Schoenfuss modified by Weh in order to electrically control the braking force of the vehicle in a simple, compact, and easy to maintain way (see US 20190232928 A1 [Adachi]; [0021], [0049]).
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 Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00.
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.
/S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights