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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶ 0065 refers to “brake pedal 12” twice. Reference numeral 12 identifies the actuation element, whereas reference numeral 14 identifies the brake pedal. Accordingly, each occurrence of “brake pedal 12” should be corrected to “brake pedal 14.”
¶ 0068 refers to “pressure plate 16.” Reference numeral 16 identifies the pressure piece, whereas reference numeral 54 identifies the pressure plate.
¶ 0080 identifies element 38 as a “positioning sensor” instead of the “position sensor” used elsewhere and recites “pressure piece 26,” although reference numeral 26 identifies the second housing part and reference numeral 16 identifies the pressure piece.
In ¶ 0083, the list of reference signs identifies element 400 as an “assembly method,” whereas ¶ 0082, FIG. 11, and claims 22 and 23 identify element 400 as a manufacturing method.
Appropriate correction is required.
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. Claim 23 and ¶ 0082 identify a magnetizing or re-magnetizing step S60, but FIG. 11 ends at step S50 and does not show step S60 or its conditional relationship to step S50. 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. 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 4, 6, 7, 16, 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “more than and 180° less than 360°.” The phrase contains an apparent typographical error. In view of ¶¶ 0011 and 0068, the intended language appears to be “more than 180° and less than 360°.”
Claim 6 recites “a radial saddle opening having a width that is less than the pressure piece.” A width cannot be compared directly with a component. In view of ¶¶ 0011 and 0068, the intended language appears to be “a width that is less than a diameter of the pressure piece.”
Claim 6 also recites “at least a first saddle bar (70) and at least a second saddle bar (72) extending circumferentially around the pressure piece (16) and define a detachable clip connection with the pressure piece (16).” The term “define” lacks a clear grammatical subject. In view of ¶¶ 0013 and 0068, the intended language appears to be “wherein the first and second saddle bars (70, 72) extend circumferentially around the pressure piece (16) and define a detachable clip connection with the pressure piece (16).”
Claim 7 identifies the magnet support with reference numeral 68. Reference numeral 68 identifies the saddle portion; the magnet support is identified by reference numeral 64.
Claim 16 recites “including comprises.” One of these terms should be deleted.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the magnet (42) is simultaneously or consecutively activates.” The term “is” should be replaced with “either” to read “wherein the magnet (42) either simultaneously or consecutively activates,” consistent with paragraph 0025
Claim 20 recites “including the a brake valve.” The phrase should be corrected to “including a brake valve.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 9 and 17 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 9 recites, “the magnet holder and the saddle portion are joined by an overmolding process, by an ultrasonic welding process, by a pushing process, by a snap fit joint and/or by gluing”. (emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim construction of the form “A and/or B” encompasses constructions including A alone, B alone, and A and B together. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of A and B, in combination, must be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in light of the specification. In the present case, it is not understood how the magnet holder and saddle portion can be joined by overmolding, ultrasonic welding, “pushing process”, snap fit joint, and gluing, simultaneously.
Claim 17 depends in the alternative from claim 15 or claim 16 and recites “the stationary part (44) of the position sensor (38) includes at least a first hall sensor (48, 48 a) and a second hall sensor (48 b).” Claim 16 already recites that the stationary part (44) “further includes at least a first hall sensor (48).” When claim 17 depends from claim 16, it is unclear whether “a first hall sensor” in claim 17 refers to the first Hall sensor already recited in claim 16 or introduces an additional first Hall sensor. Consequently, it is unclear whether the combination of claims 17 and 16 requires two Hall sensors or at least three Hall sensors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-5, 7, 8, 11, 15, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier et al. (WO 2016012066 A1) in view of Rizzi (US 20210348948 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Beier discloses a brake valve (brake value transmitter 1) for providing a brake pressure (brake pressure in first and second brake circuits) to a vehicle brake system (compressed-air braking system of a vehicle), the brake valve (1) comprising:
a housing (control valve housing 2);
a pressure piece (pressure plate 5) that applies a force to at least a valve system (first valve system 10 through compression springs 4, 4a and valve piston 3) in response to actuation by an actuatable brake pedal (pedal actuation through plunger piston 8), the pressure piece (pressure plate 5) slidably arranged in the housing (control valve housing 2) along a valve axis (common actuation axis of plunger piston 8, pressure plate 5, and valve piston 3) between a neutral position and an actuation position (unactuated and pedal-actuated positions) (see Abstract and Fig. 1).
Beier does not expressly disclose a magnet attached to the pressure piece by a magnet support; and
wherein the magnet support includes a saddle portion, wherein the saddle portion is detachably connected to the pressure piece.
Rizzi teaches, in a corresponding piston arrangement: a magnet (220) attached to a pressure piece (piston 330) by a magnet support (sleeve 110 and mounting 120); and
wherein the magnet support (sleeve 110 and mounting 120) includes a saddle portion (open sleeve 110), wherein the saddle portion is coupled to the pressure piece (piston 330 by groove/pin coupling 115). Rizzi does not expressly characterize the groove/pin coupling as detachable. Rizzi nevertheless teaches that sleeve 110 is a separate, open component coupled by complementary groove/pin features and is open for easy assembly (see ¶¶ 0022-25, 0031 and Figs. 1B-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Beier's displacement sensor 18 with Rizzi's magneto-resistive stroke-sensor arrangement, including magnet 220 carried with pressure plate 5 by open sleeve 110 and stationary magneto-resistive sensor 210. Rizzi teaches that sensor 210 generates an electrical signal based on changes in magnetic field caused by axial displacement and thereby provides accurate, noncontact stroke sensing, while the separate sealed chamber protects sensor 210 from moisture and dirt without requiring an additional sensing plunger. Substituting that known sensing arrangement for Beier's displacement sensor 18 would predictably permit Beier's measuring unit 13 to detect brake-actuation travel electrically while improving environmental protection and simplifying the sensing arrangement (Rizzi, ¶¶ 0002-0004, 0008, 0017, 0025, and 0030). It would further have been obvious to configure Rizzi’s open sleeve 110 for detachable groove/pin coupling to Beier's pressure plate 5 at radially accessible recess 5a because Rizzi teaches that sleeve 110 is a separate, open component for easy assembly, that coupling 115 prevents relative axial displacement, and that slot 325 prevents rotation. Making the coupling detachable would facilitate assembly, servicing, and replacement while maintaining the intended position of magnet 220 relative to sensor 210 (Beier, Fig. 1; Rizzi, ¶¶ 0023-24, 0028, 0030-34).
Regarding claim 2, Beier as modified by Rizzi, discloses the brake valve according to claim 1.
Beier does not expressly disclose wherein the magnet support (64) is mounted to the pressure piece (16) radially with respect to the valve axis (22).
Beier provides radially accessible recess 5a in pressure plate 5. Rizzi teaches sleeve 110 coupled to piston 330 and open for easy assembly, with its opening opposite magnet 220; Fig. 2 shows the opening extending radially relative to axial direction M. In view of those complementary structures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure sleeve 110 to be mounted to Beier's pressure plate 5 radially with respect to the valve axis at a radially accessible recess 5a because radially installing the open sleeve at recess 5a would provide the disclosed easy assembly without requiring axial disassembly of the pressure-piece arrangement. (Beier, Fig. 1 and Rizzi, ¶¶ 0024, 0031, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Beier as modified by Rizzi, discloses the brake valve (1) according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the pressure piece (pressure plate 5) includes a support portion (radial recess 5a) including a support groove and/or a support shoulder (radial recess 5a, formed as a groove or slot), and wherein the saddle portion (open sleeve 110) of the magnet support (sleeve 110 and mounting 120) engages with the support portion (coupling 115 engaging recess 5a) of the pressure piece (pressure plate 5) and axially positions the magnet support (sleeve 110 and mounting 120) relative to the pressure piece in the assembled state (coupling 115 preventing relative axial displacement) (see Beier, Fig 1; Rizzi, ¶¶ 0023-24 and Fig. 1B-2).
Regarding claim 4, Beier as modified discloses the brake valve according to claim 1, wherein the saddle portion (open sleeve 110) extends over a circumferential angle of more than and 180° less than 360° (see Rizzi, ¶ 0031 and Fig. 2; open sleeve 110 shown in Fig. 2, extending more than 180° and less than 360°).
Regarding claim 5, Beier as modified discloses the brake valve according to claim 1, wherein the saddle portion (open sleeve 110) is partially ring-shaped (incomplete ring surrounding piston 330) (see Rizzi, ¶ 0031, and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Beier as modified discloses the brake valve according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the magnet support (sleeve 110 and mounting 120) includes a magnet holder (mounting 120) that holds the magnet (220), wherein the saddle portion (sleeve 110) is arranged radially between the valve axis (axial direction M) and the magnet holder (mounting 120) (see Rizzi, ¶¶ 0022, 0025, 0031 and Figs. 1B-2).
Regarding claim 8, Beier as modified discloses the brake valve according to claim 7, wherein the magnet holder (120) and the saddle portion (110) are formed as one part (integral sleeve 110 and mounting 120) (see Rizzi, ¶ 0031).
Regarding claim 11, Beier as modified discloses the brake valve according to claim 1, wherein the magnet support (sleeve 110 and mounting 120) includes a ring-shaped wall (tubular/cylindrical wall of open sleeve 110) extending parallel to the valve axis (axial direction M) that guides the pressure piece and/or the magnet support and/or the magnet (wall of sleeve 110 sliding within cylindrical body 320 and along cover 130 to constrain sleeve 110 and magnet 220 to axial movement) (see Rizzi, ¶¶ 0031-34, and Figs. 1B-2).
Regarding claim 15, Beier as modified discloses the brake valve according to claim 1, further comprising a position sensor (displacement sensor 18 implemented by magnet 220 and magneto-resistive sensor 210) either directly or indirectly attached to the brake valve (sensor 18 arranged at control valve housing 2), wherein the magnet (220) forms a moving part (magnet 220 moving with sleeve 110 and pressure plate 5) of the position sensor (modified displacement sensor 18), which detects the position of the pressure piece (pressure plate 5 through corresponding movement of magnet 220); and
wherein a stationary part (magneto-resistive sensor 210) of the position sensor (modified displacement sensor 18) is arranged in or at the housing (sensor 210 in electronics housing 7 at control-valve housing 2), wherein the moving part (magnet 220) of the position sensor (modified displacement sensor 18) is arranged radially between the valve axis (actuation axis of pressure plate 5) and the stationary part (magneto-resistive sensor 210) of the position sensor (modified displacement sensor 18) (see Beier, Fig. 1; Rizzi, ¶¶ 0013-14, 0025, 0027-28, and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Beier as modified discloses a brake system (electronically controlled compressed-air braking system) for a vehicle (utility vehicle), the brake system (electronically controlled compressed-air braking system) including the a brake valve (brake value transmitter 1, as modified by Rizzi) according to claim 1 (see Beier, Abstract and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, Beier as modified discloses a vehicle (utility vehicle) including the brake system (electronically controlled compressed-air braking system including brake-value transmitter 1) according to claim 20.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier et al. (WO 2016012066 A1) in view of Rizzi (US 20210348948 A1), and further in view of Harting Automotive (DE 20218754 U1) (Hereinafter, “Harting”).
Regarding claim 6, Beier as modified discloses the brake valve according to claim 1.
Rizzi further teaches that the saddle portion (110) includes at least a first saddle bar (a first circumferential wall portion bordering the opening of sleeve 110) and at least a second saddle bar (an opposed circumferential wall portion bordering the opening of sleeve 110) extending circumferentially around the pressure piece (plunger 310 and/or piston 330). Rizzi teaches that sleeve 110 encircles the plunger and piston and is open opposite magnet 220 for easy assembly (Rizzi, ¶¶ 0022-24 and 0031, Fig. 2)
Beier as modified does not expressly disclose that the saddle bars define a radial saddle opening having a width that is less than the pressure piece, wherein the saddle portion flexes and is forced radially outward during assembly with the pressure piece.
Harting teaches the remaining limitations. Harting’s tubular magnet holder 50 has at least a first saddle bar (first wall portion bordering longitudinal slot 52) and at least a second saddle bar (an opposed wall portion bordering longitudinal slot 52) extending circumferentially around the pressure piece (rod 44). Magnet holder 50 is snapped or latched onto rod 44, and the width of longitudinal slot 52 is dimensioned so that holder 50 can latch onto and remain held on rod 44. Accordingly, the opposed wall portions define a detachable clip connection; the unloading opening is narrower than rod 44; and the wall portions necessarily flex radially outward as rod 44 passes through the opening during assembly (Harting, description corresponding to Figs. 1-3). and define a detachable clip connection with the pressure piece (magnet holder 50 snapped onto rod 44), wherein the saddle bars (opposed wall portions bordering longitudinal slot 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rizzi's open sleeve 110 in view of Harting so that its opposed circumferential wall portions define a snap-fit opening sized below the corresponding diameter of Beier's pressure plate 5 at recess 5a and flex radially outward during installation. The resulting sleeve would be detachably clipped to the pressure piece, thereby providing rapid, tool-free assembly and secure retention of the magnet support during axial movement while permitting later servicing or replacement.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier et al. (WO 2016012066 A1) in view of Rizzi (US 20210348948 A1) and further in view of Fletcher et al. (US 20140096675 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Beier as modified discloses the brake valve according to claim 7.
Beier does not expressly disclose wherein the magnet holder and the saddle portion are joined by an overmolding process, by an ultrasonic welding process, by a pushing process, by a snap fit joint and/or by gluing.
Fletcher teaches a magnet holder (magnet holder 220) joined to a separate actuator component (member of ball-and-socket joint 120) by a connector having first and second connector portions 222 and 224. Although the illustrated connector portions are threaded, Fletcher expressly teaches that the connector portions may alternatively form a snap-fit connection (see ¶ 0032 and Figs. 6-7).
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 combined teachings of Beier and Rizzi in view of Fletcher to form Rizzi's sleeve 110 and mounting 120 as separate components having mating snap-fit connector portions, in order to permit independent manufacture and rapid, tool free assembly of the sleeve and mounting, thereby securely maintaining their fixed operative relationship without requiring separate fasteners.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier et al. (WO 2016012066 A1) in view of Rizzi (US 20210348948 A1) and further in view of Kamen et al. (US 20130184676 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Beier as modified discloses the brake valve according to claim 1.
Beier does not expressly disclose wherein the saddle portion includes at least a rib raised parallel to the valve axis that engages the pressure piece to limit the pressure piece and/or the magnet support from rattling.
Kamen teaches in a support for an axially translating syringe plunger 544, upper and lower clamp jaws 526 and 528 having a wedge, ramp, or tapered rib on surfaces facing plunger head assembly 522. The rib projects in the axial direction of plunger 544, engages plunger flange 548, and forces flange 548 against plunger head assembly 522. Kamen teaches that this axial seating eliminates play and maintains consistent contact between plunger flange 548 and pressure sensor 532 (Kamen, ¶¶0204-0205 and Fig. 34). Although Kamen concerns a syringe pump rather than a brake valve, Kamen is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by claim 10 because both concern eliminating axial play or rattling between a support and an axially translating member so that a repeatable sensor relationship is maintained.
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 combined teachings of Beier and Rizzi in view of Kamen to provide Rizzi's sleeve 110 with Kamen's wedge, ramp, or tapered rib on an axially facing surface of the open sleeve 110, raised parallel to Beier's valve axis and positioned to engage Beier's pressure plate 5 at support recess 5a. The rib would take up axial clearance at the detachable support-to-pressure-piece interface and axially seat the sleeve relative to pressure plate 5, thereby reducing rattling and maintaining a consistent axial position of magnet 220 relative to sensor 210 (Beier, Fig. 1; Rizzi, ¶ 0031; Kamen, ¶¶ 0204-0205 and Fig. 34).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier et al. (WO 2016012066 A1) in view of Rizzi (US 20210348948 A1), and further in view of Kirsch et al. (US 20180261386 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Beier as modified discloses the brake valve according to claim 1.
Beier does not expressly disclose wherein the magnet and/or the magnet support is overmolded at least partially with a material including polyoxymethylene.
Kirsch teaches wherein the magnet (permanent magnet 3) is overmolded at least partially with a material (molding material 5) including polyoxymethylene (polyacetal (polyoxymethylene, POM)). Kirsch teaches overmolding the permanent magnet with the molding material and expressly identifies POM as a suitable thermoplastic molding material, and teaches forming contact between the molding material and the permanent magnet only in some portions such that exposed areas of the permanent magnet remain uncovered (see ¶¶ 0002, 0007, 0016-17).
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 brake valve of Beier as modified to partially overmold the magnet with polyoxymethylene as taught by Kirsch, in order to provide exact positioning of the magnet and precise operation while permitting economical mass production, thereby predictably securing the magnet in a repeatable position relative to the position sensor (see Kirsch, ¶ 0003).
Regarding claim 14, Beier as modified discloses the brake valve according to claim 1.
Beier does not expressly disclose wherein the magnet is formed as a neodymium magnet.
Kirsch teaches wherein the magnet (permanent magnet 3) is formed as a neodymium magnet (neodymium-iron-boron alloy) (see ¶ 0011).
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 magnet of the brake valve of Beier as modified to be formed as a neodymium magnet as taught by Kirsch, in order to provide a very strong permanent magnet at an acceptable cost, thereby predictably providing a sufficiently strong magnetic field for position sensing (see Kirsch, ¶ 0011).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier et al. (WO 2016012066 A1) in view of Rizzi (US 20210348948 A1), and further in view of Kirsch et al. (US 20180261386 A1) and Markgraf et al. (US 20130331488 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Beier as modified discloses the brake valve (10) according to claim 12, including the magnet (3) overmolded at least partially with a material (5) including polyoxymethylene (polyacetal (polyoxymethylene, POM)) (see Kirsch ¶¶ 0007, 0016-17).
Beier does not expressly disclose wherein the material includes more than 50% polyoxymethylene and more than 1% glass fibers.
Markgraf teaches the material (molding composition) includes more than 50% polyoxymethylene (55-85 wt.% polyoxymethylene) and more than 1% glass fibers (10-40 wt.% glass fibers) (see ¶¶ 0058, 0076-77, 0175-178). Markgraf further provides an exemplary molding composition containing 71.99 wt.% polyoxymethylene and 26 wt.% glass fibers (see ¶¶ 0199-0203, 0223, Table 1).
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 material used to overmold the magnet of the brake valve of Beier as modified to include the amounts of polyoxymethylene and glass fibers taught by Markgraf. Kirsch already identifies both polyoxymethylene and glass fibers as suitable constituents of the molding material used to overmold the permanent magnet (see Kirsch, ¶ 0007), while Markgraf teaches a compatible glass-fiber-reinforced polyoxymethylene composition suitable for automotive injection-molded components. The modification would predictably increase the mechanical strength, stiffness, impact resistance, flex fatigue and creep resistance of the magnet overmolding (see Markgraf, ¶¶ 0078-79, 0193-0198).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier et al. (WO 2016012066 A1) in view of Rizzi (US 20210348948 A1) and further in view of Muller et al. (US 20030205931 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Beier as modified discloses the brake valve according to claim 15, including a stationary part of the position sensor having at least a first hall sensor (stationary Hall sensor 210) responsive to the magnet (moving magnet 220) and producing a signal corresponding to the degree of the brake actuation (brake-actuation travel) (see Rizzi, ¶¶ 0012, 0015, 0025-26, 0030).
Beier does not expressly disclose wherein the stationary part of the position sensor includes comprises a reed switch that wakes the position sensor from an off-state.
Muller teaches wherein the stationary part of the position sensor (sensor device 38, 122 and actuation-detection means 31, 129) includes comprises a reed switch (reed switch 31, 129) that wakes the position sensor (sensor device 38, 122) from an off-state (rest state or standby mode) (see ¶¶ 0019-23, 0049-53).
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 position sensor of Beier as modified to include Muller's reed switch for waking the position sensor from the off-state upon brake actuation, in order to supply operating power to the position sensor only when brake-actuation travel is to be detected, thereby reducing standby energy consumption while retaining contactless position sensing.
Regarding claim 18, Beier as modified discloses the brake valve according to claim 1, wherein the brake valve includes at least one hall sensor (Hall sensor 210) and the magnet (magnet 220), wherein movement of the magnet produces a signal from the hall sensor corresponding to brake-actuation travel (see Rizzi, ¶¶ 0012, 0025, 0030 and Fig. 1B).
Beier does not expressly disclose at least one reed switch, wherein the magnet is the only magnet provided within the housing, and wherein the magnet is simultaneously or consecutively activates the at least one reed switch and the at least one hall sensor.
Muller teaches a magnetic primary detector (26, 112), a sensor device (38, 122) that detects positions and movements of the magnetic primary detector, and a reed switch (31, 129) operable by the same magnetic primary detector (26, 112) (see ¶¶ 0049-53).
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 brake valve of Beier as modified to include Muller's reed switch and to use the existing magnet as the only magnet provided within the housing to simultaneously or consecutively operate both the reed switch and the hall sensor, in order to avoid an additional switch-actuating magnet, thereby reducing component count and manufacturing cost while retaining both wake-up and position-sensing functions.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier et al. (WO 2016012066 A1) in view of Rizzi (US 20210348948 A1), and further in view of Muller et al. (US 20030205931 A1) and Zumberge et al. (US 20030000375 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Beier as modified discloses the brake valve according to claim 15, including a stationary part of the position sensor having at least a first hall sensor (stationary Hall sensor 210) responsive to the magnet (magnet 220) moving along the valve axis (axis M) (see Rizzi ¶¶ 0012, 0022-26, 0030 and Fig. 1B).
Beier does not expressly disclose a second hall sensor, wherein the first and second hall sensors are axially spaced apart with respect to the valve axis.
Zumberge teaches wherein the stationary part of the position sensor (travel sensor assembly 74) includes at least a first hall sensor (Hall Effect transducer 92) and a second hall sensor (Hall Effect transducer 94), wherein the first and second hall sensors are axially spaced apart with respect to the valve axis (longitudinally spaced along the direction of travel 35 of magnet 76) (see ¶¶ 0024, 0026-28, and Fig. 4).
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 stationary part of the position sensor of Beier as modified to include Zumberge's first and second hall sensors axially spaced apart with respect to the valve axis, in order to provide overlapping sensor outputs along the magnet's travel, thereby extending the measurable travel range and reliably detecting the position of the pressure piece throughout its brake-actuation travel.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier et al. (WO 2016012066 A1) in view of Rizzi (US 20210348948 A1), and further in view of Muller et al. (US 20030205931 A1) and Schaaf (WO 2013127984 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Beier as modified discloses the brake valve according to claim 18, including at least one hall sensor (Hall sensor 210), at least one reed switch (reed switch 31, 129), and the magnet (magnet 220) as the only magnet provided within the housing and operating both the reed switch and the hall sensor.
Beier does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one hall sensor is a 3D hall sensor.
Schaaf teaches wherein the at least one hall sensor (magnetic field sensor 100) is a 3D hall sensor (3D Hall sensor 100) arranged in a fixed position relative to a movable permanent magnet (permanent magnet 102) and configured to detect multiple spatial components of the magnetic field to determine relative position (see ¶¶ 0007, 0013, 0026, 0056-57, and Figs. 1 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the at least one hall sensor of Beier as modified as Schaaf’s 3D hall sensor, in order to detect multiple spatial components of the magnetic field and determine position based on the relationship between those components, thereby providing contactless position sensing that is less sensitive to variations in absolute magnetic-field strength.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (EP 3905284 A1) (Applicant Cited) in view of Markgraf et al. (US 20130331488 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Shimizu as modified discloses a manufacturing method to overmold a magnet comprising the following steps (method of manufacturing a composite molded body by arranging a rare earth magnet molded body in a mold and injection molding a resin against the magnet; see ¶¶ 0114-116):
providing a magnet, wherein the magnet is a neodymium magnet (rare-earth magnet molded body selected from neodymium; see ¶ 0018);
magnetizing the magnet (first magnetization treatment performed before manufacturing the composite molded body; see ¶¶ 0118 and 0110-0113); and
overmolding the magnet with a material (magnet arranged in a mold and resin injection molded to form the composite molded body; see ¶ 0116). Shimizu further teaches that the injection-molded material may be a polyacetal resin and may include glass fibers as fibrous fillers (see ¶¶ 0121, 0124-0126).
Although Shimizu identifies polyacetal resin and glass fibers for the injection-molded material, Shimizu does not expressly state that the total injection-molded composition includes at least 50% polyoxymethylene and at least 1% glass fibers.
Markgraf teaches a material including at least 50% polyoxymethylene and at least 1% glass fibers (molding composition containing 55-85 wt.% polyoxymethylene and 5-50 wt.% reinforcing fibers, preferably glass fibers; see ¶¶ 0058 and 0076-77; see also 71.99 wt.% POM and 26 wt.% sized glass fiber in ¶¶ 0199-0203, 0223, and Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Markgraf's glass-fiber-reinforced polyoxymethylene composition as the resin injection molded around the magnet of Shimizu. Shimizu expressly identifies polyacetal resin as a suitable thermoplastic resin and glass fibers as suitable reinforcing fillers (Shimizu, ¶¶ 0121, 0124, and 0126), while Markgraf teaches that its glass-fiber-reinforced polyoxymethylene composition provides improved mechanical properties, flex fatigue and creep resistance, and increased mechanical strength between the POM matrix and the glass fibers (Markgraf, ¶¶ 0078-79). The modification would predictably provide a mechanically stronger and more durable resin overmold around the magnet.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (EP 3905284 A1) (Applicant Cited) in view of Markgraf et al. (US 20130331488 A1), and further in view of Jones et al. (US 6201386 B1).
Regarding claim 23, Shimizu as modified discloses the manufacturing method of claim 22, including providing a neodymium magnet, magnetizing the magnet, and overmolding the magnet with a material including at least 50% polyoxymethylene and at least 1% glass fibers, as set forth above.
Shimizu further teaches measuring the magnetic force of a magnetized rare-earth magnet molded body (magnetic force measured using a Hall element and Gauss meter; see ¶¶ 0206 and 0209), identifying retained magnetic-force levels relative to a reference magnetic force (at least 70%, 80%, or 90% of the reference magnetic force; see ¶ 0113), and permitting a further magnetization after manufacturing the composite molded body and teaching that repeated magnetization can restore magnetic force attenuated by processing heat (see ¶¶ 0117-120). These teachings disclose magnetic-force measurement and post-manufacturing magnetization as separate concepts, but Shimizu does not expressly condition corrective magnetization on the result of a comparison to a minimum magnetic-force limit.
Shimizu does not expressly disclose the following limitations as a linked, threshold-controlled quality-control operation:
testing the magnetic force of the overmolded magnet;
comparing the tested magnetic force with a minimum limit value; and if necessary
magnetizing or re-magnetizing the magnet.
In particular, Shimizu does not expressly disclose using the comparison result to determine whether the finished overmolded magnet should be magnetized or re-magnetized.
Jones teaches related threshold-comparison and conditional-magnetization concepts:
testing the magnetic force of a magnet (Hall-effect probe 22 and Teslameter 24 measure the flux density and magnetic field produced by magnet 12; see col. 5, lines 1-13);
comparing the tested magnetic force with a minimum limit value (condition indicators identify a high fail or low fail when measured remanence fails to meet the required remanence value and identify a pass when the remanence meets the required value within predetermined tolerance limits; see col. 5, lines 30-48); and separately, determining whether the magnet is fully magnetized and, when it is not fully magnetized, magnetizing the magnet (magnet 12 is checked at step 30 to determine whether it is fully magnetized and, when it is not fully magnetized, capacitor-discharge magnetizer 16 fully magnetizes the magnet at step 32; see col. 5, lines 50-65 and Fig. 2). Jones's preliminary check and conditional magnetization at steps 30 and 32 precede the separate remanence measurement at step 34. Jones is therefore relied upon for the known threshold-comparison and conditional-magnetization concepts, not as disclosing claim 23's complete post-overmolding arrangement.
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 manufacturing method of Shimizu as modified, to apply Jones's threshold-comparison and conditional-magnetization teachings to the finished overmolded magnet. Shimizu recognizes that processing heat can attenuate magnetic force and expressly permits further magnetization after manufacture, while Jones teaches pass/fail comparison against a required magnetic value and separately teaches conditional magnetization when a magnet is insufficiently magnetized. A person of ordinary skill therefore would have tested the finished overmolded magnet, compared the tested magnetic force with the minimum limit value, and magnetized or re-magnetized the magnet when the tested value was below that minimum limit value. This arrangement would avoid unnecessary treatment of conforming parts while restoring magnetic force degraded during processing.
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