DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement has been received and considered.
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, the “space” as claimed on line 11 must be shown (and numerically identified) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1 It is not clear from the specification and drawings what applicants consider to be the “space” into which the electric pump is received.
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) 1- 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo 11,814,022 in view of Ahn 10,889,281.
Regarding claim 1 Seo shows one of applicant’s prior brake apparatus’ with which they are well familiar. The hydraulic block parts are shown at 100,200 in figures 2 and 3 with an inherent pump part, wheel cylinder part, space for the pump, and oil movement paths 114, 130, 134, 140 etc. – as per applicants.
Lacking in Seo is a specific indication of the space for the pump, however one is inherently there to accommodate the pump at 120.
Nevertheless Ahn shows another one of applicant’s prior designs, having a similar brake system to Seo, but numerically identifies several of the features that are believed to be inherent in Seo. For instance note the pump space at 60 in the block 10 in figure 2.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would realize that a pump space must inherently exist in the block 100 of Seo to accommodate the pump 120, as taught by Ahn.
Also, Ahn indicates it would have been obvious to have used one block as opposed to two simply for such well known reasons as less complexity, expense and numbers of parts.
Regarding claims 2,3 as discussed above these limitations are believed to be met due to the close similarity of the blocks with applicant’s design.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo/Ahn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jonner 5,988,774.
Regarding claim 9 Seo/Ahn lack specifically stating that any of the valves shown may be a ‘variable valve’, as broadly claimed.
However Jonner shows a brake system with a valve block 27 and states in col 12 lines 58-67:
FIGS. 3, 4, 5 and 6 disclose the fact that first and second valves 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the 2/2-way valve type, shown in FIG. 1, can be replaced for instance by progressively adjustable multiposition valves or progressively adjustable differential pressure valves. Accordingly, the valve assemblies 52, 53, 60, 61 used for traction control are not limited to the combination with the valve assemblies of FIG. 9 used for anti-lock purposes; on the contrary, the valve assemblies 52, 53, 60 and 61 can also be combined with the vehicle brake systems of FIGS. 3-6.
Therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have replaced at least one or more of the valves in the block of Seo with a ‘variable valve part’, as taught by Jonner, simply dependent upon the specific application of the brake system which may have the additional benefit of lower overall system costs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8,10 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
Cps
6/10/26
Prosecution Insights