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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/14/26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-11, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colasanta et al., U.S. Patent 11,247,650 (hereinafter “Colasanta”) in view of Sakai et al., Japanese Patent Publication 2015-809986 (hereinafter “Sakai”).
In Reference to Claim 1:
Colasanta discloses a brake piston (4); a working chamber (3) provided in a housing (2) wherein the brake piston is movable back and forth (via actuation of rod 6), and a piston rod (6) having, a ball head (15) at its piston side end to allow an angular deflection of the piston rod relative to a central axis of the brake piston (4), a blind bore (not labeled but shown in Figure 9) in the brake piston proceeding from an end side facing away from the working chamber into which the piston rod projects, a ball-receiving sleeve (12) seated in the blind bore and configured to receive the ball head (7); a latching sleeve (13) that secures the ball-receiving sleeve axially in the blind bore, surrounds the piston rod (6), extends between the ball-receiving sleeve (12) and a projection (9), projecting radially inwards into the blind bore, of the piston, and has, at its end facing away from the working chamber, at least one latching lobe (8) protruding axially and radially outwards in inclined fashion from a ring portion of the latching sleeve (See, Annotated Figure), which latching lobe can be moved radially inwards when the latching sleeve is pushed into the blind bore and slides along on the projection (inherent that this occurs as the latching projection is radially larger than the projection 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Colasant fails to explicitly disclose the newly amended limitation of a plurality of retaining fingers being circumferentially spaced apart from one another, each retaining finger being axially longer than at least one latching lobe and having a radially outerward projecting free end wherein each of the retaining fingers lie against the projectiong on the side facing away from the working chamber wherein the latching sleeve, when installed, is latched behind the projection, and the at least one latching lobe is delimited by oppositely directed side margins and by a peripheral margin that connects the side margins, wherein at least one side margin, in a region of contact with the projection during a pushing movement into the working chamber, extends in inclined fashion towards the opposite side margin. Instead only disclosing a single retaining finger as shown in annotated figure above.
However, in the same field of endeavor, operation input device for a brake system, Sakai discloses a latching sleeve featuring a plurality of latching lobes (110) and a plurality of latching fingers (108) wherein the plurality of retaining fingers are longer than the latching love and are spaced circumferentially and engage the other side of a projection from the latching lobe and are inclined in margin. See, Figures 4-6 respectively, Figure 4 shows the details of the latching lobes and fingers, Figure 5 and 6 shows how the respective latching sleeve sits in the blind bore and is maintained by a projection. Figure 6 shows how the latching sleeve interacts with a force applied on it.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Colasanta with the teachings of Sakai, specifically to modify the latching sleeve of Colasanta to contain a plurality of latching lobes and a plurality of retaining fingers as taught by Sakai because as discussed in Sakai simplifies and reduces the cost of manufacturing the push rod assembly by allowing for greater tolerances and therefore producing a better yield by providing a redundant engagement capability so that if an error in manufacturing does occur (which according Sakai is common due to plastic deformation) the manufacturing error can be “absorbed by the clearance” provided by the fingers (“long skirt”).
In Reference to Claim 2:
Colasanta further discloses wherein the at least one side margin extends entirely in an inclined fashion as far as the peripheral margin (identical to applicants). See, Figure 3 which shows the projection coming out until the peripheral margin (where essentially 8 is labeled).
In Reference to Claim 3:
Colasanta further discloses wherein the inclination has a constant angle as seen in the radial view. See, Figure 3.
In Reference to Claim 4:
Colasanta further discloses wherein the inclination transitions with a radius into the peripheral margin. See Figure 3. In so much as Applicant’s transitions, Examiner notes the shape of Colasanta is nearly identical to that of Applicants.
In Reference to Claim 5:
Colasanta further discloses wherein the side margins and the peripheral margin are produced by punching. Examiner notes that this claim is a product by process claim and therefore the claim does not depend on its method of production, but merely the product and as such is taught by Colasanta because the claim does not really further limit when the process is not considered.
In Reference to Claim 10:
Colasanta further discloses the angle of the inclination is selected such that, as the latching sleeve is compressed as the at least one peripheral margin slides along on the projection, a point of contact between the particular peripheral margin and the projection does not move away from the associated latching lobe but static on the projection. Examiner notes that given the consistent angle of inclination (constant slope) and that the radius of the latching loves is larger than the orifice of the blind hole of the piston that the latching sleeve is compressed as the projections interact with the projection of the blind hole. See, Figure 3 and 4 which show a close up.
In Reference to Claim 11:
Colasanta further discloses wherein in the state in which the latching sleeve has not been elastically deformed, the at least one latching lobe has a conical portion that is adjoined, in the direction of the peripheral margin, by a cylindrical portion or by a second conical portion with a smaller cone angle. See, Figure 9 which illustrates 13 is of conical nature due to the projections when the sleeve has not been elastically deformed. Also, can be seen in Figure 4.
In Reference to Claim 14:
Colasanta further discloses wherein the piston, in its deployed position, projects partially out of the working chamber and is surrounded in this region by a flange part out of which the piston rod projects. See, Figure 4. Examiner notes that 24 is not part of the working chamber as it is an additional component that is fixedly attached the brake housing to servier as a supporting stop for the piston (essentially to prevent the piston from fully retracting out of the piston instead of just partially).
In Reference to Claim 15:
Colasanta discloses a latching sleeve (13) comprising: at its end facing away from a working chamber of the vehicle brake cylinder (See, Figure 1), at least one latching lobe ( 8) protruding axially and radially outwards in inclined fashion, which the latching lobe can be moved radially inwards when a radially inwardly directed force acts on the latching sleeve (via when its pushed into the blind hole of the piston), wherein the at least one latching lobe is delimited by oppositely directed side margins and by a peripheral margin that connects the side margins (See Figure 4), wherein at least on side margin extends in a inclined fashion towards the opposite side margin (See, Figure 9).
In Reference to Claim 16:
Colasanta further discloses wherein the latching sleeve (13) has at least one of the following features: the inclination has a constant angle as seen from a radial view ( see, Figure 3 or 4) and the inclination transitions with a radius into the peripheral margin (See, Figure 3-4 which shows that the incline of the projection lobe changes radial into what can be considered a peripheral margin in so far as applicants accomplishes this as the shape of the prior art is nearly identical.)
In Reference to Claim 17:
Colosanta further discloses wherein the side margins and the peripheral margin are not processed after the punching operation. Examiner notes that this claim is a product by process claim and therefore the claim does not depend on its method of production, but merely the product and as such is taught by Colasanta because the claim does not really further limit when the process is not 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.
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.
Claim 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colasanta et al., U.S. Patent 11,247,650 (hereinafter “Colasanta”) in view of in view of Sakai et al., Japanese Patent Publication 2015-809986 (hereinafter “Sakai”) in further view Koth, U.S. Patent 6,813,991 (hereinafter “Koth”).
In Reference to Claim 6:
Colasanta discloses all the limitations as recited by claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein the latching sleeve is deformed punched sheet-metal part. Examiner notes this claims a product by process claim and therefore the claim language reciting to the process “deformed punched” is not provided any patentable weight and as such the claim merely requires the latching sleeve is a sheet-metal part.
However, in the same field of endeavor, brake cylinders with ball ended piston rod latching sleeves, Koth discloses a latching sleeve (30) which is made of sheet-metal.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Colasanta with the teachings of Koth, specifically to modify the material used by Colasanta to be sheet metal as taught by the Koth because such a modification is a simple substitution of one known material used for latching sleeves (thermoplastic of Colasanta) with another (sheet metal of Koth) providing the same predictable results of holding the piston rod within the bore of the brake piston.
In Reference to Claim 7:
Colasanta disclose all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the latching sleeve has a slot extending all the way through axially and radially, the slot extending from the ring portion in a direction opposing the retaining fingers, wherein the slot has a width in the peripheral direction that the latching sleeve, as it is pushed into the blind bore, is compressed by virtue of the slot width being reduced.
However, in the same field of endeavor, brake cylinders with ball ended piston rod latching sleeves, Koth discloses a latching sleeve wherein the sleeve has a slot extending all the way through axially and radially and wherein the slot has width in the peripheral direction that the latching sleeve, as it is pushed into the blind bore, is compressed by virtue of the slot width being reduced. See, Figure 3 slot 30C.
Examiner notes it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Colasanta with the teachings of Koth, specifically to modify Colasanta to include a slot that runs the entirety of the latching sleeve because as discussed in Koth such a modification allows for the latching sleeve to be pushed within the blind bore of the piston more easily while also creating a spring like effect to hold the latching sleeve as it is compressed.
In Reference to Claim 8:
Colasanta as modified further discloses wherein the side margin or margins facing towards the slot have an inclination. See, Koth, which shows the slot is angle and as such the side margins on the slot would have an inclination.
In Reference to Claim 9:
Colasanta as modified further discloses wherein exactly two latching lobes are provided. Examiner notes that the formation of a slot extending the entire length of the latching sleeve creates two latching lobes (in the same was as Applicant has two lobes).
Claim(s) 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colasanta et al., U.S. Patent 11,247,650 (hereinafter “Colasanta”) in view of in view of Sakai et al., Japanese Patent Publication 2015-809986 (hereinafter “Sakai”).
In Reference to Claim 13:
Colasanta discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the piston is constructed of light metal and the ball receiving sleeve is constructed of steel.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Colasanta such that the piston is of a light metal such as aluminum and that the holding sleeve is steel (taught by alternative reference Koth as being sheet metal which is typically steel) because such materials are well known as a matter of engineering expedience in the field of vehicle brakes for those specific parts. In other words, it is well known in master cylinders for brakes that the piston is often made out of light weight material such as aluminum or plastic for the purpose of reducing the weight of the vehicle and similarly it is well established that the sleeve for interacting with the piston rod is made of a more durable material such a steel due to the need for a higher fatigue stress.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S. COLLINS whose telephone number is (313)446-6535. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-4648. 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.
/DANIEL S COLLINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights