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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office 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.
Claims 21, 24, 26-27 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatano (US# 2007/0278855) in view of Nakamura et al (US# 2012/0298897).
Hatano discloses a braking system including; at least one first braking device 16 operatively connected to a first wheel, and provided with a first hydraulic supply circuit 24, a first electric actuator 23 having first motor means, electrically or electro-mechanically actuated and operatively connected to a first electrically or electro-mechanically actuated piston 38 fluidically connected to said first hydraulic supply circuit 24, at least one first interface port 12 operatively connected to a first hydraulic device 11 provided with a first manually actuated piston, wherein the first manually actuated piston is subdivided into a first direct piston 52A, directly connected to the first interface port, and a first indirect piston 52B, in series with the first direct piston, and connected to the first direct piston by interposition of a first return spring, the first indirect piston 52B being hydraulically connected to said first hydraulic supply circuit 24 through a first by-pass duct 40B, and arranged in series, upstream, with the first electrically or electro-mechanically actuated piston 38, wherein the braking system comprises a hydraulic fluid reservoir 50 fluidically connected to the first hydraulic device 11 by an upstream connection duct (at 51A) of the first indirect piston 52B and a downstream connection duct (at 51B) of the first indirect piston, and wherein the braking system is provided with a processing and control unit [0040], operatively connected to said first electric actuator, and programmed so that: in standard operation (fig. 1), upon actuation of the first interface port, the first electrically or electro-mechanically actuated piston 38 translates so as to occlude the first by-pass duct 40B, fluidically disconnect the first manually actuated piston from the first hydraulic supply circuit, and simultaneously operate the at least one first braking device. [0038]. Hatano lacks the least one first braking device being operatively connected to a first wheel of the motorcycle. Nakamura et al discloses a similar brake system and further teaches utility in vehicles such as a motorcycle, a motor tricycle, an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) or a four-wheel car. [0061] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the brake device of Hatano with a motorcycle, such as taught by Nakamura et al, to provide improved failsafe braking to motorcycle vehicles and expand the utility of the brake system.
Regarding claim 24, the processing and control unit is programmed so that in a back-up mode , the processing and control unit retracts or allows a retraction of the first electrically or electro-mechanically actuated piston so as not to occlude the first by-pass duct and to allow direct actuation of the at least one first braking device by the first manually actuated piston, when the first interface port is actuated. [0054]
Regarding claim 26, the first hydraulic supply circuit 24 is fluidically connected to a pair of first braking devices 20-21 connectable to the first wheel.
Regarding claim 27, as modified, the first hydraulic supply circuit 24 is fluidically connected to a pair of first braking devices connectable to said first wheel and to a second wheel respectively, arranged on different axles of the motorcycle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23, 25, and 28-39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 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.
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
BTK