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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a primary rubber cup . . . axially movable with the piston” and “a secondary rubber cup . . . axially movable with the piston” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is noted that Figure 1 of the present application depicts a first rubber cup seal (113) and a second rubber cup seal (114), but these cup seals are depicted as being located within annular grooves of the hydraulic block (10). Because the rubber cup seals (113, 114) are located in grooves in the hydraulic body, the rubber cup seals depicted in Figure 1 are prevented from moving with the piston.1 As such, the drawings do not depict first or second rubber cups that move with the piston.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 § 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 1-20 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.
Regarding independent claims 1, 9 and 17, the subject matter of “a primary rubber cup . . . axially movable with the piston” and “a secondary rubber cup . . . axially movable with the piston” is considered new matter.
Applicant cites to paragraphs 7, 31, 33, 36, 37, 46 and 48 as providing support for the newly claimed subject matter of “a primary [or a secondary] rubber cup . . . axially movable with the piston” (see Amendment, page 11). None of these paragraphs, however, disclose that either of the primary rubber cup or the secondary rubber cup are movable with the piston.
Nor do the figures provide any support for either of the primary rubber cup or the secondary rubber cup being movable with the piston. Figure 1 of the present application only depicts a first rubber cup seal (113) and a second rubber cup seal (114) that are located within annular grooves of the hydraulic block (10), thereby preventing them from moving with the piston.2
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 1-3, 9-11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feigel et al. (US 2004/0020201) in view of Voigtmann et al. (US 2015/0033839).
Regarding independent claim 1, Feigel discloses a hydraulic braking apparatus (see Abstract, FIG. 1), comprising: a first hydraulic block (1); a master cylinder assembly (20) disposed in the first hydraulic block (see FIG. 1), wherein the master cylinder assembly comprises: a pushrod (A) (see annotated FIG. 1, below); a piston (3) connected to the pushrod (see FIG. 1, connected via spring); a primary cup (B) (see annotated FIG. 1, below) of the piston and axially movable with the piston (see FIG. 1); a secondary rubber cup (C) (see annotated FIG. 1, below) of the piston and axially movable with the piston (see FIG. 1); a permanent magnet (9) disposed inside the piston (see FIGS. 1, 2), wherein the permanent magnet moves with the piston and emits a magnetic field (see ¶ 0018); and a stroke sensor (10, 12) enclosed in the first hydraulic block (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0017, sensor is enclosed within a blind-end bore) at an axial position disposed between the primary rubber cup and the secondary rubber cup (see FIG. 1), wherein the stroke sensor is configured to detect changes in the magnetic field (see ¶ 0018), and wherein the changes in the magnetic field correspond to movement of the permanent magnet for determining an amount of movement of the piston (see ¶ 0018).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Feigel does not disclose that the primary cup or the secondary cup are rubber.
Voigtmann teaches a hydraulic braking apparatus (see Abstract, FIG. 2) comprising a primary rubber cup (30) (see ¶ 0051; FIG. 2) and a secondary rubber cup (31) (see ¶ 0051, FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to configure the primary cup and the secondary cup of Feigel from rubber, as taught by Voigtmann, to utilize a well-known material that is suitable for seals in hydraulic cylinders that provides a sealing effect between the piston and the cylinder wall.
Regarding claim 2, Feigel discloses that the first hydraulic block comprises a blind hole (11) that is disposed between the primary rubber cup and the secondary rubber cup (see FIG. 1), and wherein the stroke sensor is disposed in the blind hole (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0018).
Regarding claim 3, Feigel discloses a sheath (D) (see annotated FIG. 1, above) disposed outside the piston (see FIG. 1), wherein the sheath is fastened on the first hydraulic block (via clip (E)) and configured to limit movement of the piston (see FIG. 1, sheath (D) prevents displacement rightward).
Regarding independent claim 9, Feigel discloses an electro-hydraulic brake-by-wire system (see ¶ 0004), comprising: a braking member (see e.g. ¶ 0003, “brake system”); and a hydraulic braking apparatus (see e.g. FIG. 1; ¶ 0003, “master cylinder”) configured to control the braking member, wherein the hydraulic braking apparatus (see FIG. 1) comprises: a first hydraulic block (1); a master cylinder assembly (20) disposed in the first hydraulic block (see FIG. 1), wherein the master cylinder assembly comprises: a pushrod (A) (see annotated FIG. 1, below); a piston (3) connected to the pushrod (see FIG. 1, connected via spring); a primary cup (B) (see annotated FIG. 1, below) of the piston and axially movable with the piston (see FIG. 1); a secondary rubber cup (C) (see annotated FIG. 1, below) of the piston and axially movable with the piston (see FIG. 1); a permanent magnet (9) disposed inside the piston (see FIGS. 1, 2), wherein the permanent magnet moves with the piston and emits a magnetic field (see ¶ 0018); and a stroke sensor (10, 12) enclosed in the first hydraulic block (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0017, sensor is enclosed within a blind-end bore) at an axial position disposed between the primary rubber cup and the secondary rubber cup (see FIG. 1), wherein the stroke sensor is configured to detect changes in the magnetic field (see ¶ 0018), and wherein the changes in the magnetic field correspond to movement of the permanent magnet for determining an amount of movement of the piston (see ¶ 0018).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Feigel does not disclose that the primary cup or the secondary cup are rubber.
Voigtmann teaches a hydraulic braking apparatus (see Abstract, FIG. 2) comprising a primary rubber cup (30) (see ¶ 0051; FIG. 2) and a secondary rubber cup (31) (see ¶ 0051, FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to configure the primary cup and the secondary cup of Feigel from rubber, as taught by Voigtmann, to utilize a well-known material that is suitable for seals in hydraulic cylinders that provides a sealing effect between the piston and the cylinder wall.
Regarding claim 10, Feigel discloses that the first hydraulic block comprises a blind hole (11) that is disposed between the primary rubber cup and the secondary rubber cup (see FIG. 1), and wherein the stroke sensor is disposed in the blind hole (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0018).
Regarding claim 11, Feigel discloses a sheath (D) (see annotated FIG. 1, above) disposed outside the piston (see FIG. 1), wherein the sheath is fastened on the first hydraulic block (via clip (E)) and configured to limit movement of the piston (see FIG. 1, sheath (D) prevents displacement rightward).
Regarding independent claim 17, Feigel discloses a vehicle (see ¶ 0023, claim 1) comprising an electro-hydraulic brake-by-wire system (see ¶ 0004); and a hydraulic braking apparatus (see e.g. FIG. 1; ¶ 0003, “master cylinder”) configured to control the electro-hydraulic brake-by-wire system, wherein the hydraulic braking apparatus (see FIG. 1) comprises: a first hydraulic block (1); a master cylinder assembly (20) disposed in the first hydraulic block (see FIG. 1), wherein the master cylinder assembly comprises: a pushrod (A) (see annotated FIG. 1, below); a piston (3) connected to the pushrod (see FIG. 1, connected via spring); a primary cup (B) (see annotated FIG. 1, below) of the piston and axially movable with the piston (see FIG. 1); a secondary rubber cup (C) (see annotated FIG. 1, below) of the piston and axially movable with the piston (see FIG. 1); a permanent magnet (9) disposed inside the piston (see FIGS. 1, 2), wherein the permanent magnet moves with the piston and emits a magnetic field (see ¶ 0018); and a stroke sensor (10, 12) enclosed in the first hydraulic block (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0017, sensor is enclosed within a blind-end bore) at an axial position disposed between the primary rubber cup and the secondary rubber cup (see FIG. 1), wherein the stroke sensor is configured to detect changes in the magnetic field (see ¶ 0018), and wherein the changes in the magnetic field correspond to movement of the permanent magnet for determining an amount of movement of the piston (see ¶ 0018).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Feigel does not disclose that the primary cup or the secondary cup are rubber.
Voigtmann teaches a hydraulic braking apparatus (see Abstract, FIG. 2) comprising a primary rubber cup (30) (see ¶ 0051; FIG. 2) and a secondary rubber cup (31) (see ¶ 0051, FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to configure the primary cup and the secondary cup of Feigel from rubber, as taught by Voigtmann, to utilize a well-known material that is suitable for seals in hydraulic cylinders that provides a sealing effect between the piston and the cylinder wall.
Regarding claim 18, Feigel discloses that the first hydraulic block comprises a blind hole (11) that is disposed between the primary rubber cup and the secondary rubber cup (see FIG. 1), and wherein the stroke sensor is disposed in the blind hole (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0018).
Regarding claim 19, Feigel discloses a sheath (D) (see annotated FIG. 1, above) disposed outside the piston (see FIG. 1), wherein the sheath is fastened on the first hydraulic block (via clip (E)) and configured to limit movement of the piston (see FIG. 1, sheath (D) prevents displacement rightward).
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, 2, 9, 10, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2017/0282880) and further in view of Feigel et al. (US 2004/0020201) and further in view of Voigtmann et al. (US 2015/0033839).
Regarding independent claim 1, Nakamura discloses a hydraulic braking apparatus (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2), comprising: a first hydraulic block (100); a master cylinder assembly (10) disposed in the first hydraulic block (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0046), wherein the master cylinder assembly comprises: a pushrod (P1); a piston (12b) connected to the pushrod (see FIG. 10); a primary cup (A) (see Annotated FIG. 10, below) of the piston (see Annotated FIG. 10, below); and a secondary cup (B) (see Annotated FIG. 10, below) of the piston (see Annotated FIG. 10, below); a permanent magnet (78) disposed inside the piston (see FIG. 10); wherein the permanent magnet moves with the piston and emits a magnetic field (see ¶ 0180); and a stroke sensor (77a) located at an axial position between the primary rubber cup and the secondary rubber cup (see FIG. 10), wherein the stroke sensor is configured to detect changes in the magnetic field (see ¶ 0180), and wherein the changes in the magnetic field correspond to movement of the permanent magnet for determining an amount of movement of the piston (see ¶ 0180).
PNG
media_image2.png
556
721
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nakamura does not disclose that the stroke sensor is enclosed in the first hydraulic block, the primary cup or the secondary cup are axially movable with the piston, or that the sensor is enclosed within the first hydraulic block.
Feigel teaches a hydraulic braking apparatus (see Abstract, FIG. 1), comprising: a first hydraulic block (1); a primary cup (B) (see annotated FIG. 1, below) of the piston and axially movable with the piston (see FIG. 1); a secondary rubber cup (C) (see annotated FIG. 1, below) of the piston and axially movable with the piston (see FIG. 1); and a stroke sensor (10, 12) enclosed in the first hydraulic block (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0017, sensor is enclosed within a blind-end bore) at an axial position disposed between the primary rubber cup and the secondary rubber cup (see FIG. 1), wherein the stroke sensor is configured to detect changes in the magnetic field (see ¶¶ 0017, 0018), and wherein the changes in the magnetic field correspond to movement of the permanent magnet for determining an amount of movement of the piston (see ¶ 0018).
It would have been obvious to configure the stroke sensor to be enclosed within the housing to locate the stroke sensor as close as possible to the magnet without disrupting the cylinder surface (see e.g. Feigel, ¶¶ 0017, 0018), thereby improving the sensitivity of the stroke sensor and/or allowing for a smaller magnet to be used. It further would have been obvious to configure the primary cup and the secondary cup to move with the piston, as disclosed by Feigel, as a simple substitution of one known element for another, without any unexpected results.
Nakamura also does not disclose that the primary cup and the secondary cup are rubber.
Voigtmann teaches a hydraulic braking apparatus (see Abstract, FIG. 2) comprising a primary rubber cup (30) (see ¶ 0051; FIG. 2), and a secondary rubber cup (31) (see ¶ 0051, FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to configure the primary cup and the secondary cup of Nakamura from rubber, as taught by Voigtmann, to utilize a well-known material that is suitable for seals in hydraulic cylinders that provides a sealing effect between the piston and the cylinder wall.
Regarding claim 2, Voigtmann teaches that wherein the first hydraulic block comprises a blind hole that is disposed between the primary rubber cup and the secondary rubber cup (see FIG. 2, sensor body (5) is located in hole in cylinder wall), and wherein the stroke sensor is disposed in the blind hole (see FIG. 2).
Regarding independent claim 9, Nakamura discloses an electro-hydraulic brake-by-wire system (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2), comprising: a braking member; and a hydraulic braking apparatus (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2), comprising: a first hydraulic block (100); a master cylinder assembly (10) disposed in the first hydraulic block (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0046), wherein the master cylinder assembly comprises: a pushrod (P1); a piston (12b) connected to the pushrod (see FIG. 10); a primary cup (A) (see Annotated FIG. 10, below) of the piston (see Annotated FIG. 10, below); and a secondary cup (B) (see Annotated FIG. 10, below) of the piston (see Annotated FIG. 10, below); a permanent magnet (78) disposed inside the piston (see FIG. 10); wherein the permanent magnet moves with the piston and emits a magnetic field (see ¶ 0180); and a stroke sensor (77a) located at an axial position between the primary rubber cup and the secondary rubber cup (see FIG. 10), wherein the stroke sensor is configured to detect changes in the magnetic field (see ¶ 0180), and wherein the changes in the magnetic field correspond to movement of the permanent magnet for determining an amount of movement of the piston (see ¶ 0180).
PNG
media_image2.png
556
721
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nakamura does not disclose that the stroke sensor is enclosed in the first hydraulic block, the primary cup or the secondary cup are axially movable with the piston, or that the sensor is enclosed within the first hydraulic block.
Feigel teaches a hydraulic braking apparatus (see Abstract, FIG. 1), comprising: a first hydraulic block (1); a primary cup (B) (see annotated FIG. 1, below) of the piston and axially movable with the piston (see FIG. 1); a secondary rubber cup (C) (see annotated FIG. 1, below) of the piston and axially movable with the piston (see FIG. 1); and a stroke sensor (10, 12) enclosed in the first hydraulic block (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0017, sensor is enclosed within a blind-end bore) at an axial position disposed between the primary rubber cup and the secondary rubber cup (see FIG. 1), wherein the stroke sensor is configured to detect changes in the magnetic field (see ¶¶ 0017, 0018), and wherein the changes in the magnetic field correspond to movement of the permanent magnet for determining an amount of movement of the piston (see ¶ 0018).
It would have been obvious to configure the stroke sensor to be enclosed within the housing to locate the stroke sensor as close as possible to the magnet without disrupting the cylinder surface (see e.g. Feigel, ¶¶ 0017, 0018), thereby improving the sensitivity of the stroke sensor and/or allowing for a smaller magnet to be used. It further would have been obvious to configure the primary cup and the secondary cup to move with the piston, as disclosed by Feigel, as a simple substitution of one known element for another, without any unexpected results.
Nakamura also does not disclose that the primary cup and the secondary cup are rubber.
Voigtmann teaches a hydraulic braking apparatus (see Abstract, FIG. 2) comprising a primary rubber cup (30) (see ¶ 0051; FIG. 2), and a secondary rubber cup (31) (see ¶ 0051, FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to configure the primary cup and the secondary cup of Nakamura from rubber, as taught by Voigtmann, to utilize a well-known material that is suitable for seals in hydraulic cylinders that provides a sealing effect between the piston and the cylinder wall.
Regarding claim 10, Voigtmann teaches that wherein the first hydraulic block comprises a blind hole that is disposed between the primary rubber cup and the secondary rubber cup (see FIG. 2, sensor body (5) is located in hole in cylinder wall), and wherein the stroke sensor is disposed in the blind hole (see FIG. 2).
Regarding independent claim 17, Nakamura discloses a vehicle (see ¶ 0002) comprising: an electro-hydraulic brake-by-wire system (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2); and a hydraulic braking apparatus (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2), comprising: a first hydraulic block (100); a master cylinder assembly (10) disposed in the first hydraulic block (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0046), wherein the master cylinder assembly comprises: a pushrod (P1); a piston (12b) connected to the pushrod (see FIG. 10); a primary cup (A) (see Annotated FIG. 10, below) of the piston (see Annotated FIG. 10, below); and a secondary cup (B) (see Annotated FIG. 10, below) of the piston (see Annotated FIG. 10, below); a permanent magnet (78) disposed inside the piston (see FIG. 10); wherein the permanent magnet moves with the piston and emits a magnetic field (see ¶ 0180); and a stroke sensor (77a) located at an axial position between the primary rubber cup and the secondary rubber cup (see FIG. 10), wherein the stroke sensor is configured to detect changes in the magnetic field (see ¶ 0180), and wherein the changes in the magnetic field correspond to movement of the permanent magnet for determining an amount of movement of the piston (see ¶ 0180).
PNG
media_image2.png
556
721
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nakamura does not disclose that the stroke sensor is enclosed in the first hydraulic block, the primary cup or the secondary cup are axially movable with the piston, or that the sensor is enclosed within the first hydraulic block.
Feigel teaches a hydraulic braking apparatus (see Abstract, FIG. 1), comprising: a first hydraulic block (1); a primary cup (B) (see annotated FIG. 1, below) of the piston and axially movable with the piston (see FIG. 1); a secondary rubber cup (C) (see annotated FIG. 1, below) of the piston and axially movable with the piston (see FIG. 1); and a stroke sensor (10, 12) enclosed in the first hydraulic block (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0017, sensor is enclosed within a blind-end bore) at an axial position disposed between the primary rubber cup and the secondary rubber cup (see FIG. 1), wherein the stroke sensor is configured to detect changes in the magnetic field (see ¶¶ 0017, 0018), and wherein the changes in the magnetic field correspond to movement of the permanent magnet for determining an amount of movement of the piston (see ¶ 0018).
It would have been obvious to configure the stroke sensor to be enclosed within the housing to locate the stroke sensor as close as possible to the magnet without disrupting the cylinder surface (see e.g. Feigel, ¶¶ 0017, 0018), thereby improving the sensitivity of the stroke sensor and/or allowing for a smaller magnet to be used. It further would have been obvious to configure the primary cup and the secondary cup to move with the piston, as disclosed by Feigel, as a simple substitution of one known element for another, without any unexpected results.
Nakamura also does not disclose that the primary cup and the secondary cup are rubber.
Voigtmann teaches a hydraulic braking apparatus (see Abstract, FIG. 2) comprising a primary rubber cup (30) (see ¶ 0051; FIG. 2), and a secondary rubber cup (31) (see ¶ 0051, FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to configure the primary cup and the secondary cup of Nakamura from rubber, as taught by Voigtmann, to utilize a well-known material that is suitable for seals in hydraulic cylinders that provides a sealing effect between the piston and the cylinder wall.
Regarding claim 18, Voigtmann teaches that wherein the first hydraulic block comprises a blind hole that is disposed between the primary rubber cup and the secondary rubber cup (see FIG. 2, sensor body (5) is located in hole in cylinder wall), and wherein the stroke sensor is disposed in the blind hole (see FIG. 2).
Claims 3-6, 11-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2017/0282880), Feigel et al. (US 2004/0020201) and Voigtmann et al. (US 2015/0033839), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Lee (US 2015/0314762).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura does not disclose a sheath disposed outside the piston, wherein the sheath is fastened on the first hydraulic block and configured to limit movement of the piston.
Lee teaches a hydraulic braking apparatus (see Abstract, FIG. 4), comprising: a sheath (140’) disposed outside a piston (111’) (see FIG. 4), wherein the sheath is fastened on the first hydraulic block (at (141’)) and configured to limit movement of the piston (see ¶¶ 0042, 0043).
It would have been obvious to replace the magnet of Nakamura with the magnet of Lee, and to combine the sheath of Lee with the device of Nakamura, to allow the use of a smaller magnet thereby reducing material costs, while maintaining the orientation of the piston and magnet relative to the stroke sensor (see e.g. Lee, ¶ 0011).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches that the permanent magnet (120) is fastened in the piston (see FIG. 4), wherein the hydraulic braking apparatus further comprises an anti-rotation mechanism (A) (see Annotated FIG. 4, below; right-half of piston (111’) comprising groove (115’) forms the anti-rotation mechanism) configured to fasten the piston to the sheath for preventing the piston and the permanent magnet from rotating around respective axes of the piston and the permanent magnet (see ¶ 0042), for avoiding a magnetic field change (see ¶ 0042).
PNG
media_image3.png
357
537
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches that the piston comprises a side (B) (see Annotated FIG. 4, above), wherein the anti-rotation mechanism comprises: an anti-rotation member (A) (see Annotated FIG. 4, above) fastened at an end of the side (B) and that is close to the pushrod (see FIG. 4); an anti-rotation rib (145’) disposed in the sheath (see FIG. 4); and an anti-rotation groove (115’) disposed in the anti-rotation member (see FIG. 4), and wherein the anti-rotation groove fits the anti-rotation rib (see FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura discloses a solenoid valve (8) (see FIG. 1), wherein a distance between the solenoid valve and the stroke sensor is greater than or equal to a target threshold (see FIGS. 1, 10).
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura does not disclose a sheath disposed outside the piston, wherein the sheath is fastened on the first hydraulic block and configured to limit movement of the piston.
Lee teaches a hydraulic braking apparatus (see Abstract, FIG. 4), comprising: a sheath (140’) disposed outside a piston (111’) (see FIG. 4), wherein the sheath is fastened on the first hydraulic block (at (141’)) and configured to limit movement of the piston (see ¶¶ 0042, 0043).
It would have been obvious to replace the magnet of Nakamura with the magnet of Lee, and to combine the sheath of Lee with the device of Nakamura, to allow the use of a smaller magnet thereby reducing material costs, while maintaining the orientation of the piston and magnet relative to the stroke sensor (see e.g. Lee, ¶ 0011).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches that the permanent magnet (120) is fastened in the piston (see FIG. 4), wherein the hydraulic braking apparatus further comprises an anti-rotation mechanism (A) (see Annotated FIG. 4, below; right-half of piston (111’) comprising groove (115’) forms the anti-rotation mechanism) configured to fasten the piston to the sheath for preventing the piston and the permanent magnet from rotating around respective axes of the piston and the permanent magnet (see ¶ 0042), for avoiding a magnetic field change (see ¶ 0042).
PNG
media_image3.png
357
537
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches that the piston comprises a side (B) (see Annotated FIG. 4, above), wherein the anti-rotation mechanism comprises: an anti-rotation member (A) (see Annotated FIG. 4, above) fastened at an end of the side (B) and that is close to the pushrod (see FIG. 4); an anti-rotation rib (145’) disposed in the sheath (see FIG. 4); and an anti-rotation groove (115’) disposed in the anti-rotation member (see FIG. 4), and wherein the anti-rotation groove fits the anti-rotation rib (see FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Nakamura discloses a solenoid valve (8) (see FIG. 1), wherein a distance between the solenoid valve and the stroke sensor is greater than or equal to a target threshold (see FIGS. 1, 10).
Regarding claim 19, Nakamura does not disclose a sheath disposed outside the piston, wherein the sheath is fastened on the first hydraulic block and configured to limit movement of the piston.
Lee teaches a hydraulic braking apparatus (see Abstract, FIG. 4), comprising: a sheath (140’) disposed outside a piston (111’) (see FIG. 4), wherein the sheath is fastened on the first hydraulic block (at (141’)) and configured to limit movement of the piston (see ¶¶ 0042, 0043).
It would have been obvious to replace the magnet of Nakamura with the magnet of Lee, and to combine the sheath of Lee with the device of Nakamura, to allow the use of a smaller magnet thereby reducing material costs, while maintaining the orientation of the piston and magnet relative to the stroke sensor (see e.g. Lee, ¶ 0011).
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches that the permanent magnet (120) is fastened in the piston (see FIG. 4), wherein the hydraulic braking apparatus further comprises an anti-rotation mechanism (A) (see Annotated FIG. 4, below; right-half of piston (111’) comprising groove (115’) forms the anti-rotation mechanism) configured to fasten the piston to the sheath for preventing the piston and the permanent magnet from rotating around respective axes of the piston and the permanent magnet (see ¶ 0042), for avoiding a magnetic field change (see ¶ 0042).
PNG
media_image3.png
357
537
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 7, 8, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2017/0282880), Feigel et al. (US 2004/0020201), Voigtmann et al. (US 2015/0033839), and Lee (US 2015/0314762), as applied to claims 6 and 14, above, and further in view of Nakazawa et al. (US 2017/0190328).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura does not disclose a second hydraulic block, wherein the solenoid valve is disposed on the second hydraulic block.
Nakazawa teaches a hydraulic braking apparatus (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2) comprising a master cylinder in a first hydraulic block (5a) and a solenoid valve (21S, 21P) disposed on a second hydraulic block (5b) (see FIGS. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to configure the device of Nakamura to have a first hydraulic block comprising the master cylinder and a second hydraulic block comprising the solenoid valves of the brake system to simplify manufacture of the brake system by reducing the complexity of the shapes to be formed and subsequently attaching them together.
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura discloses that the stroke sensor comprises: a sensor chip (77a); and a sensor substrate (77b), and wherein the hydraulic braking apparatus further comprises a control substrate (94) electrically connected to the solenoid valve and to the sensor substrate (see FIG. 10).
Regarding claim 15, Nakamura does not disclose a second hydraulic block, wherein the solenoid valve is disposed on the second hydraulic block.
Nakazawa teaches a hydraulic braking apparatus (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2) comprising a master cylinder in a first hydraulic block (5a) and a solenoid valve (21S, 21P) disposed on a second hydraulic block (5b) (see FIGS. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to configure the device of Nakamura to have a first hydraulic block comprising the master cylinder and a second hydraulic block comprising the solenoid valves of the brake system to simplify manufacture of the brake system by reducing the complexity of the shapes to be formed and subsequently attaching them together.
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura discloses that the stroke sensor comprises: a sensor chip (77a); and a sensor substrate (77b), and wherein the hydraulic braking apparatus further comprises a control substrate (94) electrically connected to the solenoid valve and to the sensor substrate (see FIG. 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9 and 17 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
April 17, 2026
1 Applicant states itself that a seal located in a groove on a housing prevents the seal from moving with the piston (see Amendment, page 12; “the sealing members A and B reside in grooves of the base body 100” and “[t]herefore, Nakamura’s sealing members are fixed stationary in the base body”).
2 Applicant states itself that a seal located in a groove on a housing prevents the seal from moving with the piston (see Amendment, page 12; “the sealing members A and B reside in grooves of the base body 100” and “[t]herefore, Nakamura’s sealing members are fixed stationary in the base body”).
Prosecution Insights