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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 08/06/2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1-3 have been amended; no claims have been added, canceled, or withdrawn. Claims 1-3 are now pending and under consideration.
The previous rejections of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant asserts on pages 6-8 of the remarks that the amendments to independent claim 1 distinguish over the prior art rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0052494 to Yamamoto et al. such that the rejection should be withdrawn because “Yamamoto does not disclose a fluid unit as recited in amended Claim 1” (see page 7 of the remarks), and because Yamamoto does not disclose a number of elements which are not required to be included by the “parking brake device” of claim 1 (see the last seven words of page 7 through line 11 of page 8 of the remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As pointed out by the non-final Office Action mailed 05/06/2025: claim scope is not limited by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (e.g., see: MPEP 2114_II).
As also pointed out by the non-final Office Action: no part of any of the recitations “that suctions a brake fluid from a master cylinder using a first electric motor as a motive power source,” “that increases a pressure of the brake fluid discharged by the fluid pump and supplies the increased pressure to a wheel cylinder as a brake fluid pressure,” “the fluid unit causing the brake fluid pressure to press a friction member fixed to vehicle wheels of the vehicle to generate a braking force,” or “that uses a second electric motor as a motive power source and generates the braking force on a parking wheel on which a parking brake is applied among the vehicle wheels” of claim 1 necessarily further defined structure of the claimed “parking brake device” {or an included element thereof [e.g., the “fluid unit” (which includes a “fluid pump,” a “pressure regulating valve,” and, newly, a “master reservoir”), the “electrically-powered unit,” or the “controller”]}, such that none of the recitations “that suctions a brake fluid from a master cylinder using a first electric motor as a motive power source,” “that increases a pressure of the brake fluid discharged by the fluid pump and supplies the increased pressure to a wheel cylinder as a brake fluid pressure,” “the fluid unit causing the brake fluid pressure to press a friction member fixed to vehicle wheels of the vehicle to generate a braking force,” or “that uses a second electric motor as a motive power source and generates the braking force on a parking wheel on which a parking brake is applied among the vehicle wheels” are germane to patentability of the claimed “parking brake device” under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant’s remarks do not dispute these interpretations, such that it can only be understood that Applicant agrees that none of the recitations “that suctions a brake fluid from a master cylinder using a first electric motor as a motive power source,” “that increases a pressure of the brake fluid discharged by the fluid pump and supplies the increased pressure to a wheel cylinder as a brake fluid pressure,” “the fluid unit causing the brake fluid pressure to press a friction member fixed to vehicle wheels of the vehicle to generate a braking force,” or “that uses a second electric motor as a motive power source and generates the braking force on a parking wheel on which a parking brake is applied among the vehicle wheels” are germane to patentability of the claimed “parking brake device” under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Additionally, with respect to the subject matter added by amendment to lines 14-22 of claim 1, no part of “the master cylinder has a bottomed cylindrical hole formed by a closed bottom surface and an inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical hole, a first master piston and a second master piston are inserted into the bottomed cylindrical hole of the master cylinder, outer peripheral surfaces of the first and second master pistons and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder are sealed by a tip seal on a side close to the bottom portion of the master cylinder and a rear end seal on a side away from the bottom portion of the master cylinder, movement of the brake fluid is permitted via a lip portion of the tip seal in the direction from the master reservoir to a master chamber in the master cylinder, when a braking operation member is operated, communication between the master reservoir and the master chamber is blocked by movement of the first and second master pistons, and the tip seal resists suction of the brake fluid by the fluid pump” necessarily further defines structure of the claimed “parking brake device” (or an included element thereof), such that no part of the subject matter added by amendment to lines 14-22 of claim 1 is germane to patentability of the claimed “parking brake device” under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Therefore, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (e.g., lines 14-22 of claim 1) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) as being “included” by the claimed “parking brake device.” Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Even so, Yamamoto teaches that the master cylinder 14 (emphasis added) includes a cylindrical hole with a bottom on a bottom end opposite to a pedal end having a brake pedal 12, where the apparent bottom forms an apparent “closed bottom surface,” and where the cylindrical hole forms an apparent “inner peripheral surface” (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 7-10 of Yamamoto), such that Yamamoto fully teaches “the master cylinder has a bottomed cylindrical hole formed by a closed bottom surface and an inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical hole,” as recited by claim 1 under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Yamamoto also teaches that a first piston 18 (e.g., “first master piston”) and a second piston 22 (e.g., “second master piston”) are inserted into the master cylinder 14 (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 7-10 of Yamamoto), such that Yamamoto fully teaches “a first master piston and a second master piston are inserted into the bottomed cylindrical hole of the master cylinder,” as recited by claim 1 under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Yamamoto further teaches that each of the first piston 18 and the second piston 22 is sealed with an apparent definable “inner peripheral surface” within the cylinder housing 16 of the master cylinder 14 by respective apparent definable pairs of a “tip seal” and a “rear end seal” within the cylinder housing 16, where each “tip seal” is relatively closer to an apparent definable “bottom portion” of the master cylinder 14 as compared to a corresponding “rear end seal,” where a first apparent definable “lip portion,” of the “tip seal” which seals the first piston 18, permits the working liquid to flow from the master cylinder reservoir 36 to a first liquid chamber 24 (e.g., “master chamber”) in the master cylinder 14 via a first input port 32, and where a second apparent definable “lip portion,” of the “tip seal” which seals the second piston 22, permits the working liquid to flow from the master cylinder reservoir 36 to a second liquid chamber 26 (e.g., “master chamber”) in the master cylinder 14 via a second input port 34 (as pointed out and labeled by the marked-up copy of Fig. 1 of Yamamoto provided directly below), and each of the “tip seal,” the “rear end seal,” and the “lip portion of the tip seal” in the marked-up copy of Fig. 1 of Yamamoto provided directly below is shown at least substantially equivalently to respective ones of each of the tip seal CS, the rear end seal CK, and the lip portion of the tip seal CS in at least Fig. 1 of Applicant’s original drawings, such that Yamamoto fully teaches “outer peripheral surfaces of the first and second master pistons and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder are sealed by a tip seal on a side close to the bottom portion of the master cylinder and a rear end seal on a side away from the bottom portion of the master cylinder, movement of the brake fluid is permitted via a lip portion of the tip seal in the direction from the master reservoir to a master chamber in the master cylinder,” as recited by claim 1 under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Yamamoto additionally teaches that communication between the master cylinder reservoir 36 and the master chamber 14 is blocked by movement of each of the first piston 18 and the second piston 22 when a brake pedal 12 (e.g., “braking operation member”) is depressed (e.g., “operated”), and that suction resistance of the working liquid from the first liquid chamber 24 and the second liquid chamber 26 by the pump 46 would, at least at times, necessarily exist at each “tip seal” (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 7-10 in view of at least ¶ 0043-0053 of Yamamoto, and as pointed out and labeled by the marked-up copy of Fig. 1 of Yamamoto provided directly below), and, again, each of the “tip seal,” the “rear end seal,” and the “lip portion of the tip seal” in the marked-up copy of Fig. 1 of Yamamoto provided directly below is shown at least substantially equivalently to respective ones of each of the tip seal CS, the rear end seal CK, and the lip portion of the tip seal CS in at least Fig. 1 of Applicant’s original drawings, such that Yamamoto fully teaches “when a braking operation member is operated, communication between the master reservoir and the master chamber is blocked by movement of the first and second master pistons, and the tip seal resists suction of the brake fluid by the fluid pump,” as recited by claim 1 under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
PNG
media_image1.png
267
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the prior art rejection of amended claim 1 has been maintained and updated in order to address the amendments to the claim.
As discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, Yamamoto fully teaches each and every limitation of the claimed “parking brake device” under a broadest reasonable interpretation so as to anticipate the claim. However, in an event where Applicant is able to sufficiently show that (A) one or more portions of “outer peripheral surfaces of the first and second master pistons and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder are sealed by a tip seal on a side close to the bottom portion of the master cylinder and a rear end seal on a side away from the bottom portion of the master cylinder, movement of the brake fluid is permitted via a lip portion of the tip seal in the direction from the master reservoir to a master chamber in the master cylinder, when a braking operation member is operated, communication between the master reservoir and the master chamber is blocked by movement of the first and second master pistons, and the tip seal resists suction of the brake fluid by the fluid pump” necessarily further limits the claimed “parking brake device” under a broadest reasonable interpretation and (B) Yamamoto does not fully teach said one or more portions of “outer peripheral surfaces of the first and second master pistons and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder are sealed by a tip seal on a side close to the bottom portion of the master cylinder and a rear end seal on a side away from the bottom portion of the master cylinder, movement of the brake fluid is permitted via a lip portion of the tip seal in the direction from the master reservoir to a master chamber in the master cylinder, when a braking operation member is operated, communication between the master reservoir and the master chamber is blocked by movement of the first and second master pistons, and the tip seal resists suction of the brake fluid by the fluid pump,” and/or in such a case where (1) “outer peripheral surfaces of the first and second master pistons and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder are sealed by a tip seal on a side close to the bottom portion of the master cylinder and a rear end seal on a side away from the bottom portion of the master cylinder, movement of the brake fluid is permitted via a lip portion of the tip seal in the direction from the master reservoir to a master chamber in the master cylinder, when a braking operation member is operated, communication between the master reservoir and the master chamber is blocked by movement of the first and second master pistons, and the tip seal resists suction of the brake fluid by the fluid pump” is differently interpreted as further limiting the claimed “parking brake device” under a broadest reasonable interpretation and (2) Yamamoto is not interpreted or relied upon to teach “outer peripheral surfaces of the first and second master pistons and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder are sealed by a tip seal on a side close to the bottom portion of the master cylinder and a rear end seal on a side away from the bottom portion of the master cylinder, movement of the brake fluid is permitted via a lip portion of the tip seal in the direction from the master reservoir to a master chamber in the master cylinder, when a braking operation member is operated, communication between the master reservoir and the master chamber is blocked by movement of the first and second master pistons, and the tip seal resists suction of the brake fluid by the fluid pump,” an additional alternative prior art rejection of amended claim 1 is newly made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0217834 to Maruo et al., and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0054955 to Ninoyu et al.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “outer peripheral surfaces of the first and second master pistons and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder are sealed by a tip seal on a side close to the bottom portion of the master cylinder and a rear end seal on a side away from the bottom portion of the master cylinder” in lines 18-21 of claim 1 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered. Line 18-21 of claim 1 now require for a single “tip seal” to seal each of (A) an outer peripheral surface of the first master piston and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder and (B) an outer peripheral surface of the second master piston and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder, and for a single “rear end seal” would be able to seal both of “(A) and “(B).” However, Applicant’s drawings fail to show each of a “tip seal” and a “rear end seal” that seals both of “(A) and “(B),” as is required by amended claim 1, because, for example, Fig. 1 of Applicant’s drawings differently shows a first tip seal CS (having a first lip portion) and a first rear end seal CK sealing a first master piston NP in a master cylinder CM and a second tip seal CS (having a second lip portion) and a second rear end seal CK sealing a second master piston NS in the master cylinder CM, where none of the first tip seal CS, the first rear end seal CK, the second tip seal CS, or the second rear end seal CK seals both of the first master piston NP and the second master piston NS in the master cylinder CM.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For clarity, the last three lines of claim 1 should be amended to immediately follow “the controller increases,” in the fourth-to-last line of the claim without being provided on a next line with a separate indent.
For clarity, the last two lines of claim 2 should be amended to immediately follow “the controller is configured” in the third-to-last line of the claim without being provided on a next line with a separate indent.
For clarity, the last four lines of claim 3 should be amended to immediately follow “the controller is configured to” in the fifth-to-last line of the claim without being provided on a next line with a separate indent.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “electrically-powered unit” in claims 1-3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, as amended, now recites “outer peripheral surfaces of the first and second master pistons and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder are sealed by a tip seal on a side close to the bottom portion of the master cylinder and a rear end seal on a side away from the bottom portion of the master cylinder” in lines 18-21, which now requires for a single “tip seal” to seal each of (A) an outer peripheral surface of the first master piston and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder and (B) an outer peripheral surface of the second master piston and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder, and for a single “rear end seal” would be able to seal both of “(A) and “(B).” However, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s originally-filed specification sufficiently discloses each of a “tip seal” and a “rear end seal” that seals both of “(A) and “(B),” as is required by amended claim 1. Applicant’s drawings also fail to show each of a “tip seal” and a “rear end seal” that seals both of “(A) and “(B),” as is required by amended claim 1, because, for example, Fig. 1 of Applicant’s drawings differently shows a first tip seal CS (having a first lip portion) and a first rear end seal CK sealing a first master piston NP in a master cylinder CM and a second tip seal CS (having a second lip portion) and a second rear end seal CK sealing a second master piston NS in the master cylinder CM, where none of the first tip seal CS, the first rear end seal CK, the second tip seal CS, or the second rear end seal CK seals both of the first master piston NP and the second master piston NS in the master cylinder CM. Therefore, the amendments to claim 1 improperly introduce “new matter” to the claim, such that the claim now fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2 and 3 are dependent from claim 1, such that claims 2 and 3 also include the “new matter” recited by claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, as amended, now recites “outer peripheral surfaces of the first and second master pistons and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder are sealed by a tip seal on a side close to the bottom portion of the master cylinder and a rear end seal on a side away from the bottom portion of the master cylinder” in lines 18-21. Given that each of (A) an outer peripheral surface of the first master piston and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder and (B) an outer peripheral surface of the second master piston and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder would only be reasonably expected to define an interface that is separate from the other of “(A) and “(B),” it is unclear how a single “tip seal” would be able to seal both of “(A) and “(B),” as is required by amended claim 1. For similar reasons, it is unclear how a single “rear end seal” would be able to seal both of “(A) and “(B),” as is required by amended claim 1.
Claims 2 and 3 are dependent from claim 1, such that claims 2 and 3 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0052494 to Yamamoto et al. (hereinafter: “Yamamoto”).
With respect to claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a parking brake device (apparent from at least Figs. 1, 2 & 7-11) for a vehicle (apparent from at least ¶ 0062 & 0160), the parking brake device comprising: a fluid unit [e.g., hydraulic actuator 82 (or a definable portion thereof)] including a fluid pump [e.g., pump 46 (or pump 46b)] that suctions a brake fluid (e.g., “working liquid”) from a master cylinder (master cylinder 14) using a first electric motor (motor 62) as a motive power source [claim scope is not limited by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (e.g., see: MPEP 2114_II), and no part of “that suctions a brake fluid from a master cylinder using a first electric motor as a motive power source” necessarily further defines structure of the claimed “fluid pump” (or the claimed “fluid unit,” or the claimed “parking brake device”), as “that suctions a brake fluid from a master cylinder using a first electric motor as a motive power source” merely sets forth the manner in which the claimed “fluid pump” is intended to be employed, such that “that suctions a brake fluid from a master cylinder using a first electric motor as a motive power source” is not germane to patentability of the claimed “parking brake device” under a broadest reasonable interpretation; even so, apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 7-11 in view of at least ¶ 0043, 0049-0052, 0067 & 0098), and a pressure regulating valve [e.g., linear control valve 56 (or liquid control valve 56b)] that increases a pressure of the brake fluid discharged by the fluid pump and supplies the increased pressure to a wheel cylinder [e.g., wheel cylinder 60 (or wheel cylinder 60RL, or wheel cylinder 60RR)] as a brake fluid pressure [no part of “that increases a pressure of the brake fluid discharged by the fluid pump and supplies the increased pressure to a wheel cylinder as a brake fluid pressure” necessarily further defines structure of the claimed “pressure regulating valve” (or the claimed “fluid unit,” or the claimed “parking brake device”), as “that increases a pressure of the brake fluid discharged by the fluid pump and supplies the increased pressure to a wheel cylinder as a brake fluid pressure” merely sets forth the manner in which the claimed “pressure regulating valve” is intended to be employed, such that “that increases a pressure of the brake fluid discharged by the fluid pump and supplies the increased pressure to a wheel cylinder as a brake fluid pressure” is not germane to patentability of the claimed “parking brake device” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 7-11 in view of at least ¶ 0043, 0049-0052, 0054-0055 & 0098], the fluid unit causing the brake fluid pressure to press a friction member (e.g., brake pad 106a, or brake pad 106b) against a rotating member (e.g., disc rotor 104) fixed to vehicle wheels (“wheels”; not shown) of the vehicle to generate a braking force [no part of “the fluid unit causing the brake fluid pressure to press a friction member fixed to vehicle wheels of the vehicle to generate a braking force” necessarily further defines structure of the claimed “fluid unit” (or the claimed “parking brake device”), as “the fluid unit causing the brake fluid pressure to press a friction member fixed to vehicle wheels of the vehicle to generate a braking force” merely sets forth the manner in which the claimed “fluid unit” is intended to be employed, such that “the fluid unit causing the brake fluid pressure to press a friction member fixed to vehicle wheels of the vehicle to generate a braking force” is not germane to patentability of the claimed “parking brake device” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, apparent from at least Figs. 1, 2 & 7-11 in view of at least ¶ 0073-0077]; an electrically-powered unit [e.g., disk brake unit 100 (or a definable portion thereof)] that uses a second electric motor (e.g., electric motor 102) as a motive power source and generates the braking force on a parking wheel (e.g., a rear “wheel”; not shown) on which a parking brake is applied among the vehicle wheels [no part of “that uses a second electric motor as a motive power source and generates the braking force on a parking wheel on which a parking brake is applied among the vehicle wheels” necessarily further defines structure of the claimed “electrically-powered unit” (or the claimed “parking brake device”), as “that uses a second electric motor as a motive power source and generates the braking force on a parking wheel on which a parking brake is applied among the vehicle wheels” merely sets forth the manner in which the claimed “electrically-powered unit” is intended to be employed, such that “that uses a second electric motor as a motive power source and generates the braking force on a parking wheel on which a parking brake is applied among the vehicle wheels” is not germane to patentability of the claimed “parking brake device” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, apparent from at least Figs. 1, 2 & 7-11 in view of at least ¶ 0073-0084]; and a controller [electronic control unit (ECU) 84] that controls the fluid unit and the electrically-powered unit (apparent from at least Figs. 1, 2 & 7-11 in view of at least ¶ 0065-0067 & 0082), wherein, the fluid unit further includes a master reservoir (36) that stores the brake fluid inside (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 7-10 in view of at least ¶ 0045), the master cylinder has a bottomed cylindrical hole formed by a closed bottom surface and an inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical hole [no part of “the master cylinder has a bottomed cylindrical hole formed by a closed bottom surface and an inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical hole” necessarily further defines structure of the claimed “fluid unit” (or the claimed “parking brake device”), as “the master cylinder has a bottomed cylindrical hole formed by a closed bottom surface and an inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical hole” merely sets forth the manner in which the claimed “parking brake device” is intended to be employed, such that “the master cylinder has a bottomed cylindrical hole formed by a closed bottom surface and an inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical hole” is not germane to patentability of the claimed “parking brake device” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, it is apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 7-10 that the master cylinder 14 (emphasis added) includes a cylindrical hole with a bottom on a bottom end opposite to a pedal end having a brake pedal 12, where the apparent bottom forms an apparent “closed bottom surface,” and where the cylindrical hole forms an apparent “inner peripheral surface”], a first master piston and a second master piston are inserted into the bottomed cylindrical hole of the master cylinder [no part of “a first master piston and a second master piston are inserted into the bottomed cylindrical hole of the master cylinder” necessarily further defines structure of the claimed “fluid unit” (or the claimed “parking brake device”), as “a first master piston and a second master piston are inserted into the bottomed cylindrical hole of the master cylinder” merely sets forth the manner in which the claimed “parking brake device” is intended to be employed, such that “a first master piston and a second master piston are inserted into the bottomed cylindrical hole of the master cylinder” is not germane to patentability of the claimed “parking brake device” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, it is apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 7-10 that a first piston 18 (e.g., “first master piston”) and a second piston 22 (e.g., “second master piston”) are inserted into the master cylinder 14], outer peripheral surfaces of the first and second master pistons and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder are sealed by a tip seal on a side close to the bottom portion of the master cylinder and a rear end seal on a side away from the bottom portion of the master cylinder, movement of the brake fluid is permitted via a lip portion of the tip seal in the direction from the master reservoir to a master chamber in the master cylinder [no part of “outer peripheral surfaces of the first and second master pistons and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder are sealed by a tip seal on a side close to the bottom portion of the master cylinder and a rear end seal on a side away from the bottom portion of the master cylinder, movement of the brake fluid is permitted via a lip portion of the tip seal in the direction from the master reservoir to a master chamber in the master cylinder” necessarily further defines structure of the claimed “fluid unit” (or the claimed “parking brake device”), as “outer peripheral surfaces of the first and second master pistons and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder are sealed by a tip seal on a side close to the bottom portion of the master cylinder and a rear end seal on a side away from the bottom portion of the master cylinder, movement of the brake fluid is permitted via a lip portion of the tip seal in the direction from the master reservoir to a master chamber in the master cylinder” merely sets forth the manner in which the claimed “parking brake device” is intended to be employed, such that “outer peripheral surfaces of the first and second master pistons and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder are sealed by a tip seal on a side close to the bottom portion of the master cylinder and a rear end seal on a side away from the bottom portion of the master cylinder, movement of the brake fluid is permitted via a lip portion of the tip seal in the direction from the master reservoir to a master chamber in the master cylinder” is not germane to patentability of the claimed “parking brake device” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, as pointed out and labeled by the marked-up copy of Fig. 1 of Yamamoto provided directly below, each of the first piston 18 and the second piston 22 is sealed with an apparent definable “inner peripheral surface” within the cylinder housing 16 of the master cylinder 14 by respective apparent definable pairs of a “tip seal” and a “rear end seal” within the cylinder housing 16, where each “tip seal” is relatively closer to an apparent definable “bottom portion” of the master cylinder 14 as compared to a corresponding “rear end seal,” where a first apparent definable “lip portion,” of the “tip seal” which seals the first piston 18, permits the working liquid to flow from the master cylinder reservoir 36 to a first liquid chamber 24 (e.g., “master chamber”) in the master cylinder 14 via a first input port 32, and where a second apparent definable “lip portion,” of the “tip seal” which seals the second piston 22, permits the working liquid to flow from the master cylinder reservoir 36 to a second liquid chamber 26 (e.g., “master chamber”) in the master cylinder 14 via a second input port 34; also, note that each of the “tip seal,” the “rear end seal,” and the “lip portion of the tip seal” in the marked-up copy of Fig. 1 of Yamamoto provided directly below is shown at least substantially equivalently to respective ones of each of the tip seal CS, the rear end seal CK, and the lip portion of the tip seal CS in at least Fig. 1 of Applicant’s original drawings], when a braking operation member is operated, communication between the master reservoir and the master chamber is blocked by movement of the first and second master pistons, and the tip seal resists suction of the brake fluid by the fluid pump [no part of “when a braking operation member is operated, communication between the master reservoir and the master chamber is blocked by movement of the first and second master pistons, and the tip seal resists suction of the brake fluid by the fluid pump” necessarily further defines structure of claimed “parking brake device,” as “when a braking operation member is operated, communication between the master reservoir and the master chamber is blocked by movement of the first and second master pistons, and the tip seal resists suction of the brake fluid by the fluid pump” merely sets forth the manner in which the claimed “parking brake device” is intended to be employed, such that “when a braking operation member is operated, communication between the master reservoir and the master chamber is blocked by movement of the first and second master pistons, and the tip seal resists suction of the brake fluid by the fluid pump” is not germane to patentability of the claimed “parking brake device” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, it is apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 7-10 in view of at least ¶ 0043-0053 that communication between the master cylinder reservoir 36 and the master chamber 14 is blocked by movement of each of the first piston 18 and the second piston 22 when a brake pedal 12 (e.g., “braking operation member”) is depressed (e.g., “operated”), and that suction resistance of the working liquid from the first liquid chamber 24 and the second liquid chamber 26 by the pump 46 would, at least at times, necessarily exist at each “tip seal”; again, note that each of the “tip seal,” the “rear end seal,” and the “lip portion of the tip seal” in the marked-up copy of Fig. 1 of Yamamoto provided directly below is shown at least substantially equivalently to respective ones of each of the tip seal CS, the rear end seal CK, and the lip portion of the tip seal CS in at least Fig. 1 of Applicant’s original drawings], the controller increases, in a case where the parking brake is actuated in a state where a driver of the vehicle operates the braking operation member, only the brake fluid pressure corresponding to the parking wheel in the wheel cylinder (apparent from at least Figs. 7-11 in view of at least ¶ 0097-0109).
PNG
media_image1.png
267
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Yamamoto teaches the parking brake device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the parking wheel is a rear wheel of the vehicle, and a non-parking wheel among the vehicle wheels on which the parking brake is not applied is a front wheel of the vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 1, 2 & 7-11 in view of at least ¶ 0084), the fluid unit includes, as the pressure regulating valve, a front wheel pressure regulating valve (56a) and a rear wheel pressure regulating valve (56b) that are normally opened in a front-rear type braking system (apparent from at least Figs. 1, 2 & 7-11 in view of at least ¶ 0054-0055), and the controller is configured not to energize the front wheel pressure regulating valve and to energize only the rear wheel pressure regulating valve in a case where the parking brake is actuated (apparent from at least Figs. 10 & 11 in view of at least ¶ 0145-0147).
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0217834 to Maruo et al. (hereinafter: “Maruo”), and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0054955 to Ninoyu et al. (hereinafter: “Ninoyu”), in the alternative to under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto.
As discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, Yamamoto fully teaches each and every limitation of the claimed “parking brake device” under a broadest reasonable interpretation so as to anticipate the claim. However, in such a case where Applicant is able to sufficiently show that (A) one or more portions of “outer peripheral surfaces of the first and second master pistons and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder are sealed by a tip seal on a side close to the bottom portion of the master cylinder and a rear end seal on a side away from the bottom portion of the master cylinder, movement of the brake fluid is permitted via a lip portion of the tip seal in the direction from the master reservoir to a master chamber in the master cylinder, when a braking operation member is operated, communication between the master reservoir and the master chamber is blocked by movement of the first and second master pistons, and the tip seal resists suction of the brake fluid by the fluid pump” necessarily further limits the claimed “parking brake device” under a broadest reasonable interpretation and (B) Yamamoto does not fully teach said one or more portions of “outer peripheral surfaces of the first and second master pistons and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder are sealed by a tip seal on a side close to the bottom portion of the master cylinder and a rear end seal on a side away from the bottom portion of the master cylinder, movement of the brake fluid is permitted via a lip portion of the tip seal in the direction from the master reservoir to a master chamber in the master cylinder, when a braking operation member is operated, communication between the master reservoir and the master chamber is blocked by movement of the first and second master pistons, and the tip seal resists suction of the brake fluid by the fluid pump,” and/or in such a case where (1) “outer peripheral surfaces of the first and second master pistons and the inner peripheral surface of the master cylinder are sealed by a tip seal on a side close to the bottom portion of the maste