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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 1-3, 7-13, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2021-0004895 A to Kyungho in view of US 2021/0246973 A1 to Shimizu et al.
Re-claims 1, 3 and 13, Kyungho teaches an electromechanical brake, comprising: a housing 70 with a piston chamber containing gas (as consistent with the instant invention), an actuating piston 30 for a brake lining 13, an electric motor 40 drives the actuating piston, the actuating piston is moved between a retracted position and an extended position, the actuating piston is movably accommodated in the housing, such that an end of the actuating piston directed towards the brake lining protrudes from the housing and an opposite end of the actuating piston is accommodated in the housing (see at least figure 2), at least one venting unit 82d is accommodated in the housing in order to allow a gas exchange between the piston chamber and the environment, the venting unit is fixed on the housing by a holding element (i.e. coupled to the housing, see translation and “the cap (82g) coupled to the air vent hole (82f)”), the housing comprises two housing shells (such as shell 70 and 82) and a sleeve-shaped section (see sleeve shaped extensions from shell 70, this is consistent with the instant invention and sleeve 42 extending from shell 40; or section 71 which has a sleeve shaped formation), the at least one venting unit is arranged in one of the two housing shells (specifically shell 82). However, Kyungho fails to teach the venting unit comprising a gas-permeable filter element and a holding element for the filter element, or the holding element formed with latches.
Shimizu et al. teach a venting unit 47 with a gas-permeable filter element 60 and a holding element 62 for the filter element, the holding element is formed with latches (see figure 5). This forms a unitary venting unit that is easily assembled to a structure, thus easing assembly and allowing for easy replacement. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have looked to teachings of Shimizu and their unitary venting unit when having provided the brake assembly of Kyungho with an easily assembled venting unit having a gas-permeable filter element and integral holding element, as this would have greatly eased the assembly process and would have reduced costs.
Re-claim 2, Kyungho teaches an aperture 82f for the venting unit (see figure 12), the aperture is formed in shell 82, the venting unit 82g is accommodated within the aperture.
Re-claims 7 and 17, Kyungho shows a sealing element 82h (as does Shimizu, see element 66).
Re-claim 8, Kyungho shows a collar (raised annular feature, see figure 12) formed with the housing shell 82, the venting unit is surrounded by the collar upon insertion into the aperture.
Re-claims 9-12 and 18-20, the teachings of Shimizu et al. show the venting unit with at least one venting channel covered by the filter element 60; the holding element is annular (see figure 5); a cover 61 covers the filter element and is provided with an inlet 64 in a side wall of the cover; a meandering channel is formed between the housing and the holding element (see figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated each of these elements into the modified venting unit of Kyungho as suggested by Shimizu et al., as the features would have reduced the ingress of liquid into an interior chamber of the housing.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyungho in view of Shimizu et al. as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of US 9,562,579 to Rehfus et al.
Re-claims 4 and 14, Kyungho as modified by Shimizu et al. fail to teach the holding element threaded to the aperture.
Rehfus et al. teach a venting unit that is threaded into an aperture formed in a housing. This is merely one alternative method by which the venting unit could be attached to the aperture. 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 modified venting unit of Kyungho with thread for a threaded attachment with the aperture as taught by Rehfus et al., thus providing an alternate type of connection feature.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyungho in view of Shimizu et al. as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of US 8,083,823 to Clerget.
Re-claims 5 and 15, Kyungho as modified by Shimizu et al. fail to teach the holding element either adhesively bonded or welded to the housing.
Clerget teaches a venting unit having a holding unit 21 welded or bonded (i.e. glued) to a housing structure. This ensures a fixed connection between the holding unit and housing, see column 3 lines 17-22. Therefore, as per the teachings of Clerget, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have either welded or bonded the holding element of Kyungho to the housing aperture as taught by Clerget, as this would have provided an alternative connection means, as well as ensuring a fixed connection between the holding unit and housing.
Re-claims 6 and 16, Kyungho as modified by Shimizu et al. fail to teach the filter element over-molded along its outer edge with material of the holding element.
Clerget teaches a holding element 21 over-molded a filter element 1. This structure fixedly attached the filter element to the holding element and prevents removal of the filter element, see column 3 lines 12-15. Therefore, as per the teachings of Clerget, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have over-molded the modified holding element to the filter element in Kyungho as taught by Clerget, this would have positively fixed the filter element with the holding element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128.
The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding
should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW /THOMAS J WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 July 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights