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, 3-5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dasbach Gregor (DE – 102017202021 A1, from IDS, Examiner disclosed English machined translation for rejection reference).
As per claims 1 and 9, Gregor discloses Two-wheel Assembly, On Particular Bicycle Assembly With Improved Safety comprising:
a brake assistance device for a hydraulic brake system for a vehicle (Fig: 1-3, Title), the vehicle driven by muscle power and/or an electric motor (Abstract), the brake assistance device comprising:
a sensor (6, function as sensor) including a first piston (Attached figure and Fig: 2-3;
a compensation volume (Attached figure and Fig: 2-3) including a second piston (16, Fig: 2) and a pretensioning element (17, Fig: 2);
a 2/2-way valve (19, 21, The deactivation device 19 is a 2/2-way valve in this embodiment, Preferred embodiments of invention [0007], Fig: 2-3);
a brake piston (Gregor discloses “The wheel brake is preferably a disc brake” so that its inherently include piston, Disclosure of invention, [0003], Fig: 2-3); and
an actuator (15, Fig: 2-w3),
wherein the pretensioning element (17) is configured to exert a pressure onto the second piston and thus onto a hydraulic fluid of the hydraulic brake system (Preferred embodiments of invention [0006] and [0008], Fig: 2-3), and
wherein the actuator is configured to move the second piston selectively in a first direction or in a second direction oriented opposite the first direction (The actor 15 includes a piston 16 which is in a cylinder 18 is movable back and forth and a return element 17 , A piston surface of the piston 16 is via the hydraulic connection line 14 acted upon by hydraulic pressure, Preferred embodiments of invention, [0006], Fig: 2-3).
As per claim 3, Gregor discloses wherein the sensor comprises a hand lever (6, Fig: 2-3).
As per claim 4, Gregor discloses an exhaust valve located between the brake piston and the compensation volume; and
a check valve (29, Fig: 3) located (i) between the exhaust valve (30, Fig: 3) and the compensation volume (Attached figure and Fig: 3), and (ii) between the sensor (6, Fig: 3) and the 2/2-way valve on the other hand.
As per claim 5, Gregor discloses an exhaust valve located between the brake piston and the compensation volume, and
a check valve (29, Fig: 3) located (i) between the exhaust valve (30, Fig: 3) and the compensation volume (Attached figure and Fig: 3), and (ii) between the 2/2-way valve (21, Fig: 3) and the brake piston on the other hand (5, Fig: 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
666
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 8, Gregor discloses wherein the pretensioning element (17, fig: 2-3) comprises a spiral spring (It should also be noted that as a restoring element 17 either coil springs or disc springs can be used, Preferred embodiments of invention, [0011], Fig: 2-3).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasbach Gregor (DE – 102017202021 A1, from IDS as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krisher (US – 2006/0228236 A1).
As per claim 2, Gregor discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the actuator comprises an electric motor with a spindle drive.
Krisher discloses Actuator Assembly comprising:
wherein the actuator (30, Fig: 1) comprises an electric motor (36, Fig: 1) with a spindle drive (20, [0015], Fig: 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Two-wheel Assembly, On Particular Bicycle Assembly With Improved Safety of the Gregor to use the actuator with an electric motor with a spindle drive as taught by Krisher in order to an exceptionally compact source for hydraulic fluid pressure in a convenient packaging.
As per claim 6, Krisher further discloses wherein a selectively separable connection is provided between the actuator and the second piston (via clutch assembly 18, [0026] and claim 17, Fig: 1).
As per claim 7, Gregor as modified by Krisher discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the pretensioning element is configured to establish a hydraulic pressure of at least 40 bar.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the pretensioning element is configured to establish a hydraulic pressure of at least 40 bar, since it has been held that discovering and optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routines skill in the art. MPEP – 2144.05, III. C.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A: Reinartz et al. (US – 5,297,863),
B: Takata et al. (US – 4,693,521),
C: Hagspiel et al. (US – 2015/0344009 A1), and
D: Wienss Andreas (EP – 3345821 B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN M AUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5792. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:30 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.
/SAN M AUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616