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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “comprises” should read “comprising,” and the article “a” should be inserted before “push rod.”
In claim 2, “and” should be inserted after “is provided,”
In claim 4, “axially facing away from the component” should read “positioned axially away from the component.”
In claim 7, “the Y-axis” lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 0022, “component-pressure rod unit” should read “component-push-rod unit.”
In ¶ 0038, “pedal rod 26” should read “pedal rod 36.”
In ¶ 0043, “push rod 28” should read “push rod 26.”
In ¶ 0048, “end 28 of the push rod 28” should read “end 28 of the push rod 26.”
In ¶ 0056, “pressure rod 26” should read “push rod 26.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegrist et al. (US 20200339094 A1) in view of Brown et al. (US 4796958 A).
Regarding claim 1, Siegrist discloses a functional system arrangement (master-brake-cylinder arrangement; see Fig. 1) for a vehicle brake system (hydraulic brake system actuated by master brake cylinder 2) in an associated vehicle on a vehicle wall (firewall carrying mounting bracket 40) of the vehicle, the functional system arrangement comprises:
a component (master brake cylinder 2 and cylinder body 12; see Figs. 2-6) of a functional system (vehicle hydraulic brake system) of the vehicle brake system to be fastened to the vehicle wall (cylinder body 12 secured by bracket 40 to the firewall; see ¶¶ 0027, 0037); and
push rod (8) coupled to the component (push rod 8 is one piece with piston 6 received in cylinder body 12; see ¶¶ 0028, 0030-31);
wherein the component (cylinder body 12 of master cylinder 2) has a length (longitudinal extent of cylinder body 12) extending along an X-axis (longitudinal axis of cylinder body 12 and push rod 8; see ¶ 0034) and a height (body extent perpendicular to the longitudinal axis; see Figs. 2, 5-6, 12) extending along a Z-axis (perpendicular height direction of cylinder body 12) perpendicular to the X-axis (orthogonal longitudinal and height directions shown in Figs. 2, 5-6, 12), and a component-push-rod unit (cylinder body 12, piston 6, and push rod 8) is formed with the component (cylinder body 12 and piston 6) and the push rod (8), the component-push-rod unit running with its longitudinal extension (common longitudinal extent of cylinder body 12 and push rod 8) along the X-axis (longitudinal axis; see ¶ 0034).
Siegrist does not expressly disclose the component-push-rod unit is to be arranged on the vehicle wall rotated by an angle about the Z-axis.
Brown teaches arranging a brake system assembly (assembly 10 and body 12) on the vehicle wall (firewall-facing mounting plate 232 and studs 234) rotated by an angle (predetermined selected mounting angle set by tapered boss 14, recess 236, and flange 238; see Fig. 1). Brown states that modifying the flange 238 permits assembly 10 to be mounted at different angles and that different mounting-bolt patterns adapt the assembly to different vehicles (see Abstract). Brown’s disclosure of different mounting angles includes selection of a side-to-side mounting angle, which rotates assembly 10 about the vehicle vertical Z-axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the firewall mount of Siegrist with the selected angle bracket of Brown, so that the component-push-rod unit is rotated about the vehicle vertical Z-axis, because Brown permits a standardized brake assembly to fit different firewall geometries and different vehicles. The predictable result is Siegrist's elongated component-push-rod unit fixed at a yaw angle while retaining its firewall mount and operable push-rod linkage.
Regarding claim 2, Siegrist as modified discloses the functional system arrangement according to claim 1, and a component (master brake cylinder 2 and cylinder body 12) fastened to the vehicle wall (bracket 40 secured to the firewall; see Figs. 2-6 and ¶¶ 0027, 0030, 0037).
Siegrist does not expressly disclose that at least one fastening element to be coupled to the component is provided, a receiving point of the fastening element is arranged eccentrically in relation to the X-axis in accordance with the angle.
Brown teaches at least one fastening element (mounting stud 234; see Fig. 1) to be coupled to the component (stud 234 is fixed to plate 232, and plate 232 receives tapered boss 14 of assembly 10), and a receiving point (stud receiving location in the vehicle firewall) of the fastening element arranged eccentrically (stud receiving location spaced radially from bore axis 56; see Fig. 1) in relation to the X-axis (body and bore axis 56 of assembly 10) in accordance with the angle (flange 238 geometry and mounting-bolt pattern selected for the predetermined mounting angle; see claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange Brown’s stud receiving points on the selected-angle bracket used with Siegrist because Brown varies the flange geometry and bolt pattern to secure one standardized brake assembly to differently configured vehicle firewalls. This reduces vehicle-specific component redesign and provides a secure load path at the selected yaw angle. The predictable result is an eccentric stud-receiving point in accordance with the Z-axis angle.
Regarding claim 8, Siegrist as modified discloses the functional system arrangement according to claim 1, further comprising:
an interface device (bushing 10, pivot ball 30, and bracket 40; see Figs. 2-6) configured to fasten the push rod (push rod 8 and one-piece piston 6) to the component (bushing 10 captures piston 6 in cylinder body 12, see ¶ 0021) and to fasten the component to the vehicle wall (pivot ball 30 and bracket 40 secure cylinder body 12 to the firewall; see ¶¶ 0035-40),
Siegrist does not expressly disclose that the interface device has a first contact surface coupled to the component and a second contact surface to be applied to the vehicle wall, and the second contact surface is positioned at an angle to the first contact surface such that the arrangement of the component-push-rod unit rotated by the angle about the Z-axis is achieved.
Brown teaches the interface device (universal bracket 230 with plate 232, recess 236, and flange 238) has a first contact surface (complementary recess 236 and flange 238; see Fig. 1) coupled to the component (recess 236 and flange 238 receive tapered boss 14 of assembly 10) and a second contact surface (firewall-facing surface of mounting plate 232) to be applied to the vehicle wall (plate 232 secured by studs 234 to the firewall), and the second contact surface (firewall-facing plate 232) is positioned at an angle (predetermined selected mounting angle) to the first contact surface (recess 236 and flange 238) such that the arrangement of the component-push-rod unit (Siegrist cylinder body 12, piston 6, and push rod 8 received through Brown’s bracket geometry) rotated by the angle (Brown’s predetermined selected mounting angle) about the Z-axis is achieved.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Brown’s selected angle interface geometry in Siegrist's firewall bracket so that the component-push-rod unit is rotated about the vehicle vertical Z-axis, because Brown’s interface adapts a standardized assembly to differently configured firewalls. The predictable result is an interface that retains the push rod and component, fastens the component to the wall, and fixes the required Z-axis yaw angle.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegrist et al. (US 20200339094 A1) in view of Brown et al. (US 4796958 A), and further in view of Rossigno et al. (US 4826121 A).
Regarding claim 3, Siegrist as modified discloses the functional system arrangement according to claim 1.
Siegrist does not expressly disclose wherein at least one receptacle arranged on the vehicle wall is provided and is arranged eccentrically in relation to the X-axis in accordance with the angle.
Rossigno teaches at least one receptacle (opening 46) arranged on the vehicle wall (12) is provided and is arranged eccentrically (semicircular base 48 is offset from semicircular top 50 and joined by parallel sides 52, 54; see Fig. 3) in relation to the X-axis (hub 49 and booster-shell axis through opening 46) in accordance with the angle (hub 49 shifts radially into offset base 48 and is locked by clip 26 and detent 30; see Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Rossigno’s offset firewall receptacle for the yawed unit of claim 1 because the receptacle permits the hub to be inserted, shifted laterally to the selected position, and positively retained. Rossigno reduces installation time and effort, eliminates alignment-prone studs, and distributes brake reaction forces through the firewall flange. The predictable result is a wall receptacle eccentric to the unit X-axis in accordance with the selected Z-axis angle.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegrist et al. (US 20200339094 A1) in view of Brown et al. (US 4796958 A), and further in view of Jarjoura et al. (US 20210240215 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Siegrist as modified discloses the functional system arrangement according to claim 1.
Siegrist does not expressly disclose wherein an arrangement of the component-push-rod unit rotated about the Z-axis is created using a pivot point which is positioned on the push rod, axially facing away from the component.
Jarjoura teaches creating the rod-to-pedal arrangement using a pivot point (dome-shaped or spherical end portion 17; see ¶ 0050) positioned on the push rod (end portion 17 on push rod 19) and axially facing away from the component (end portion 17 is at the pedal-side distal end of push rod 19 opposite brake booster 15; see Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Jarjoura’s spherical distal end on the push rod of the yawed brake unit because the spherical end provides a smooth contact surface and tolerates the angular relationship between the yawed push rod and the pedal connection. This reduces binding and assembly sensitivity while transmitting the same axial brake force. The predictable result is the claimed pivot point on the push rod, axially facing away from the component.
Regarding claim 5, Siegrist as modified discloses the functional system arrangement according to claim 4.
Siegrist does not expressly disclose wherein the pivot point is rotatably coupled to a receiving position of an associated pedal device.
Jarjoura teaches the pivot point (spherical end portion 17 on push rod 19) is rotatably coupled to a receiving position (concave operating-member receiving portion 27 of retainer 21; see ¶¶ 0057-59) of an associated pedal device (retainer housing 23 attached to pedal arm 12; see ¶¶ 0037, 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple Jarjoura’s spherical push-rod end to its conforming concave pedal receiver because the ball-and-receiver geometry provides a smooth bearing connection, permits relative rotation, and securely transfers pedal force to the push rod. Jarjoura also teaches improved bearing performance, low installation effort and high retention force. The predictable result is the pivot point rotatably coupled to the pedal receiving position.
Regarding claim 6, Siegrist as modified discloses the functional system arrangement according to claim 5.
Siegrist does not expressly disclose wherein the pedal device is not arranged rotated.
Jarjoura teaches vehicle mounting bracket 16 mounted to the vehicle structure and pedal arm 12 pivoting relative to bracket 16 about pivot axis P-P during actuation. The rotation described in paragraph [0054] is operational pivoting of pedal arm 12, not rotation of the installed pedal device about the vehicle vertical Z-axis, at least. Jarjoura further teaches push rod 19 coupled through spherical end portion 17 and concave receiving portion 27 of retainer 21 (see Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶ 0047-50, 0054, and 0057-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to keep Jarjoura’s pedal arm and mounting bracket in their conventional, non-yawed orientation while yawing the component-push-rod unit because the spherical connection accommodates the angular offset without relocating the driver interface. Keeping the existing pedal orientation preserves pedal reach, travel, pivot, and sensor geometry and avoids a more costly cockpit redesign. The predictable result is a yawed component-push-rod unit connected to a pedal device that is not arranged rotated.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegrist et al. (US 20200339094 A1) in view of Brown et al. (US 4796958 A), and further in view of Ono et al. (US 20020070605 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Siegrist as modified discloses the functional system arrangement according to claim 1.
Siegrist does not expressly disclose the component-push-rod unit is additionally to be arranged on the vehicle wall rotated at an angle about the Y-axis.
Ono teaches the component-push-rod unit (master cylinder 14 and push rod 23; see Figs. 1-2) additionally to be arranged on the vehicle wall (dash panel 3 through flange 53 and fasteners 55) rotated at an angle (front of master cylinder 14 faces downward and its longitudinal axis is pitched relative to the vehicle longitudinal direction; see Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 0012, 0029, 0035) about the Y-axis (fixed shaft defined by fasteners 55 extends in the vehicle-width direction; see Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶ 0026-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally pitch the yawed unit of claim 1 about the vehicle-widthwise Y-axis as taught by Ono because Ono’s installed inclination permits reliable swinging under a frontal load, suppresses rearward master-cylinder and pedal displacement, and preserves driver legroom. The predictable result is two-axis packaging and crash-clearance adjustment while retaining the pedal-operated push-rod connection.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegrist et al. (US 20200339094 A1) in view of Brown et al. (US 4796958 A), and further in view of Schoenfuss et al. (US 20160061276 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Siegrist as modified discloses the functional system arrangement according to claim 8.
Siegrist does not expressly disclose wherein the first contact surface and the second contact surface are formed in one piece with one another.
Schoenfuss teaches wherein the first contact surface (master-cylinder adapter region 6; see Figs. 3-4) and the second contact surface (bulkhead-contacting fastening region 12 and frame 13) are formed in one piece (adapter region 6 and fastening region 12 are integral regions of single pedal carrier 2) with one another (planes of integral regions 6 and 12 enclose angle w1; see Fig. 4 and ¶ 0078).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Brown’s component -contacting region and wall-contacting region in the single carrier taught by Schoenfuss because Schoenfuss’s one-piece plastic carrier reduces part count, permits a replaceable angle-compensating adapter and standardized master cylinder, lowers production and storage cost, and maintains the cylinder orientation needed for bleeding. The predictable result is a lower-cost interface having both angled contact surfaces in one piece.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegrist et al. (US 20200339094 A1) in view of Brown et al. (US 4796958 A), and further in view of Fredrick et al. (US 8225920 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Siegrist as modified discloses the functional system arrangement according to claim 8.
Siegrist does not expressly disclose wherein the first contact surface and the second contact surface are formed in two parts relative to one another.
Fredrick teaches wherein a first contact surface (component-side surface on cylinder bracket 34 mounting master cylinder 42; see Figs. 1-4) and a second contact surface (wall-side surface on mounting bracket 26 with base 21 and reinforcing plate 22 applied to firewall 14) are formed in two parts (separate cylinder bracket 34 and firewall bracket 26 with plate 22) relative to one another (pivot axis 30 and bolts 46 set and retain the relative bracket angle; see Figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Fredrick’s separate cylinder bracket and firewall bracket for Brown’s selected Z-axis angle because Fredrick’s two-part arrangement permits the angular relationship to be selected, aligns the push rod with the pedal line of action, and locks the cylinder securely. Separate brackets also simplify manufacture and permit the firewall and cylinder interfaces to be changed independently. The predictable result is a two-part interface whose component-side and wall-side contact surfaces are set and retained at the required relative angle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karem Akram Algarash whose telephone number is (571)272-5789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/K.A.A./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights