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 § 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 9, 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,562,579 to Rehfus et al.
Re-claim 1, Rehfus et al. disclose an electromechanical vehicle brake for a motor vehicle, comprising: a housing 12/16 with a piston chamber containing gas, an actuating piston 8 for a brake lining, an electric motor 4 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 figure 1), at least one venting unit 14 is accommodated in the housing that allows a gas exchange between the piston chamber and the environment, the venting unit comprises a gas-permeable filter element (see column 6 lines 26-44) and a holding element 34 for the filter element, the holding element fixes the venting unit to the housing.
Re-claim 2, the housing 12 has an aperture, the venting unit is accommodated in the aperture.
Re-claim 4, the holding element 34 is threaded to an aperture of the housing 12.
Re-claim 9, the holding element is provided with a venting channel (as is necessary for venting air or gas), the filter element covers the channel (to prevent the ingress of liquid, see column 6 lines 26-44).
Re-claim 10, the holding element 34 is annular.
Re-claim 14, a thread is formed on the holding element 34, see column 6 lines 7-11.
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) 3, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rehfus et al. in view of US 2021/0246973 A1 to Shimizu et al.
Re-claim 3, Rehfus et al. fail to teach the holding element 34 having latching elements that protrude through an aperture in the housing.
Shimizu et al. teach a venting unit having latching elements 62 that protrude through an aperture in a housing 34. This is merely an alternative method of attachment for the venting unit, and requires only a pressing action rather than a screw/rotation action. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the threaded structure in the venting unit of Rehfus et al. with latching elements as shown in Shimizu et al., as this would have provided a venting unit with a simple snap fit connection.
Re-claims 7 and 17, Rehfus et al. fail to teach a seal arranged between the venting unit and the housing.
Shimizu et al. teach a seal 66 located between a venting unit 48 and a housing 34. This prevents liquid from passing between the venting unit and the housing. 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 venting unit of Rehfus with a seal between the venting unit and the housing as taught by Shimizu et al., as this would have prevented the passage of liquid between the venting unit and housing.
Re-claims 8 and 18, Rehfus et al. fail to teach a collar integrally formed on the housing and surrounding the venting unit.
Shimizu et al. teach a collar 68 integrally formed on the housing and surrounding the venting unit 48. The collar prevents external parts from contacting the venting body, see paragraph 63, and thus prevents damage to the venting unit. 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 housing of Rehfus with a collar integrally formed with the housing as taught by Shimizu et al., as this would have prevented external parts from contacting and damaging the venting unit.
Re-claims 11 and 19, Rehfus et al. fail to teach the venting unit having a cover that covers the filter element, the cover having at least one inlet opening in a side wall of the cover.
Shimizu et al. teach a cover 61 that covers a filter element 60. This would protect the filter element from damage. 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 venting unit of Rehfus with a cover for coveting the filter element as taught by Shimizu et al., as this would have protected the filter element from damage and being pierced.
Re-claims 12 and 20, Rehfus et al. fail to teach the housing and holding element shaped to form a meandering venting channel between the housing and the holding element.
Shimizu et al. teach a venting element 48 having a holding element 62 and housing 34 that form a meandering venting channel 46 a seal 66 located between a venting unit 48 and a housing 34. This arrangement traps any oil from a motor from traveling to the filter element, see at least paragraph 74. 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 venting unit of Rehfus with a meandering venting channel between the holding element and housing as taught by Shimizu et al., so as to prevent any oil from reaching the filter element and thus clogging the filter element.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,083,823 to Clerget.
Re-claims 5 and 15, Rehfus 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 Rehfus et al. to the housing aperture as taught by Clerget, as this would have ensured a fixed connection between the holding unit and housing.
Re-claims 6 and 16, Rehfus 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 holding element to the filter element of Rehfus et al. as taught by Clerget, this would have fixed the filter element with the holding element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lihhoff teaches an electromechanical brake having a venting unit. Shaw, Waida, Daimon, Yano, Ina, and Egersdoerfer each teach a venting device.
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
March 13, 2026
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616