DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure statements have been received and considered.
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.
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) 14- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich et al. 11,505,169 in view of Shaw 6,014,862.
Regarding claim 14, as broadly claimed, Friedrich et al. shows in figures 1,2,4:
A hydraulic block 1 for a hydraulic unit for an electrohydraulic dual-circuit (12,20) power brake system (see electric motors at 12.3,22.3), the hydraulic block comprising: a power cylinder bore 12.1,12.2 in which two power pistons (not specifically labeled but see col 8 lines 57+) are displaceably arranged; two ports (see figure 1 ports—not labeled—but connected to chambers 7.1,7.2) for a brake fluid reservoir 7 which communicate with the power cylinder bore, wherein nonreturn valves (not labeled – but see fig 4 two one way valves in lines 9.1,9.2) which permit flow in a direction of the power cylinder bore are arranged in the hydraulic block between the ports for the brake fluid reservoir and the power cylinder bore (note the junction in lines 9.1,9.2), the nonreturn valves ‘connecting’ the power cylinder bore 12.1,12.2 to the ports for the brake fluid reservoir 7; and ‘bypass lines’ (as broadly claimed—not labeled but two lines coming directly from 7.1,7.2 in figure 4) which connect the ports for the brake fluid reservoir hydraulically in parallel to the nonreturn valves with the power cylinder bore.
Lacking in Friedrich is a specific numerical identification of the power pistons (although discussed therein in col 8) and the non-return valves.
The reference to Shaw shows a similarly structured power cylinder but is relied upon to more specifically show the pistons at 19 and 21. Also note the non-return valve at 90,91.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would realize that the pistons discussed in col 8 of Friedrich could take the form of the pistons as more clearly shown in Shaw. Also Shaw provides an example of a non-return valve at 90,91 provided in the port connecting the reservoir 14 to the power bore 18,23.
Regarding claim 15, as broadly claimed, these limitations are at least capable of being met upon a power failure and manual actuation of the master cylinder via the brake pedal.
Regarding claim 16 since Shaw shows a non-return valve located coaxially with one of the ports it would have been obvious to have located both the non-return valves of Friedrich coaxially, as claimed, simply for space savings considerations or to accommodate a particular vehicle brake arrangement.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich/Shaw as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Leiber et al. U.S. 2016/0229383.
Regarding claim 18 while Friedrich, as modified, shows an electric motor at 12.3 which inherently includes some type of transmission arrangement to displace the pistons lacking is a specific numerical identification of said transmission.
Leiber shows a power cylinder arrangement at 6-13 which includes a screw type transmission 7 connected to a motor 8.
One having ordinary skill in the art would realized that some type of transmission would be connected to the motor 12.3 in Friedrich to move the pistons for the device to function as intended.
Leiber is relied upon to show such one well known type of screw type transmission at 7 that could be used.
Regarding claim 19, as broadly claimed, these limitations are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 21 note the electronic control unit at 14.
Regarding claim 24,25 as broadly claimed, the ‘hydraulic pump’ is considered to be element at 22.
Regarding claim 26 note the second electronic control unit at 24 in figure 1.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich/Shaw as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Tandleer et al. U.S. 2010/0207446.
Regarding claim 23 Friedrich, as modified, lacks specifically showing that the hydraulic block includes receptacles for the solenoid valves as shown in figures 4,5.
The reference to Tandler shows a brake system having a hydraulic block best seen in figures 1-3 that includes receptacles 84-106 for solenoid valves, as discussed in para 0021.
One having ordinary skill in the art would realize that the hydraulic block of Friedrich would inherently have receptacles for the solenoid valves, as taught by Tandler.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17,20,22 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
1/16/26