DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0096553).
Regarding claim 1, May discloses a brake actuating device for a motor vehicle brake system comprising:
a hydraulic unit (2) and defining a first plurality of location openings in a side face thereof (every surface has openings);
an electric motor (11 is the opening for the motor) arranged on the side face of the hydraulic unit, wherein the electric motor drives a pressure generator (5) located in the hydraulic unit to convey a hydraulic fluid;
the hydraulic unit (2, actual limitation addressed below) having a first connecting surface (top side fig. 2) and defining a second plurality of location openings (R1 and R4) thereon, wherein the adapter unit is arranged on the side face of the hydraulic unit;
wherein each of the first plurality of location openings of the hydraulic unit is connected in fluid communication with one of the second plurality of location openings of the adapter unit (shown in fig. 1 are the connections from the motor driven pressure generator to the brake connections); and
wherein the adapter unit comprises a second connection surface having a plurality of connection openings for fluidically connecting wheel brakes of the motor vehicle brake system (surface with R2 and R3 in fig. 2).
May does not disclose an adapter unit that is separate from the hydraulic unit.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the hydraulic unit and the adapter unit be separate units, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 2 which depends from claim 1, May discloses further comprising a plurality of connecting pieces, wherein each connecting piece is at least partially inserted into one the first plurality of location opening of the hydraulic unit and at least partially inserted into a corresponding one of the second plurality of location openings of the adapter unit (there are pipes that connect all the openings in 2).
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 2, May discloses wherein each connecting piece comprises a through hole for fluid communication between the hydraulic unit and the adapter unit (there are bores connecting all the openings).
Regarding claim 5 which depends from claim 1, May discloses wherein the adapter unit comprises a plurality of channels, each of which connects one of the second plurality of location openings in the first connecting surface of the adapter unit to one of the plurality of connection openings in the second connection surface of the adapter unit (shown in fig. 1-6).
Regarding claim 6 which depends from claim 5, May discloses wherein the plurality of channels are drilled into the adapter unit (this is apparatus by process limitation which is addressed by showing the end product which is shown in the figures.).
Regarding claim 7 which depends from claim 1, May discloses wherein the second connection surface of the adapter unit is oriented at an angle to the side face of the hydraulic unit (all orientations are an angle).
Regarding claim 8 which depends from claim 7, May discloses wherein the second connection surface is at a right angle to the side face (shown in the figures).
Regarding claim 9 which depends from claim 1, May discloses wherein in an installed position of the brake actuating device the adapter unit is arranged above the electric motor on the hydraulic unit (this can be oriented however one desires).
Claim(s) 3, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0096553) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, further in view of Siegel (U.S. Pat. No. 6,082,244).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 2, May does not disclose wherein each of the plurality of connecting pieces is pressure-tightly press-fitted into the respective one of the first plurality of the location openings of the hydraulic unit and into the corresponding one of the second plurality of connection openings of the adapter unit.
Siegel, which deals in hydraulic systems, teaches that press-fitted connections can be used in hydraulic braking systems (col. 2, lines 18-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified May with the press fitting connection of Siegel because this is a known form of connections in hydraulic brakes.
Regarding claim 10 which depends from claim 1, Siegel discloses wherein the adapter unit is connected to the hydraulic unit with a screwed connection (col. 2, lines 18-23 discloses using screw connections in a hydraulic brake system where May has been modified to have these two units be two separate units).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under Dinkel have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of May (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0096553).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights