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 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.
Claim(s) 14-19, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 111071230 A to Pan et al.
Re-claim 14, Pan et al. disclose an actuation device for a brake system having a master brake cylinder 28, comprising: a gearing device with a displaceable threaded spindle 5 (also called the electric push rod), the master brake cylinder is actuated by displacing the threaded spindle; an electric motor (see page 4 paragraph 3) drives the gearing device 2/3; a housing 26 in which the threaded spindle is at least partially arranged; a rotation-locking element 14/15 is connected to the threaded spindle against rotation, the housing has at least one rotational counter-stop 262 which interacts with a rotational stop of the rotation-locking element to form an anti-rotation device for the threaded spindle (see page 3 and discussion of the first embodiment and figure 3), the housing is an extrusion profile (the housing is a tube, see figures 1 and 9), the rotational counter-stop is formed by an extrusion structure of the extrusion profile. The claim appears to recite an extrusion process for forming the housing. However, this would fall under the product-by-process examination (see MPEP 2113), and are thus not relied upon for determining patentability. It is noted that Pan et al. disclose various methods for forming the housing 26, one of which is called “stretch forming”, which likely means extrusion process and may be a translation issue. Since the stretch forming process would not typically be used for forming a tube.
Re-claim 15, a displacement axis of the threaded spindle is aligned perpendicularly to a cross-sectional area of the extrusion profile.
Re-claim 16, the gearing device has a spindle gear 5, wherein the spindle gear has the threaded spindle and a rotatably mounted spindle nut 4, the spindle nut is rotatable in a first direction of rotation and in a second direction of rotation opposite to the first direction of rotation, the anti-rotation device is configured to block rotation of the threaded spindle both in a first direction of rotation and in a second direction of rotation.
Re-claim 17, the extrusion profile has at least one first rotational counter-stop aligned opposite to the first direction of rotation and at least one second rotational counter-stop aligned opposite to the second direction of rotation (the stops are opposing sides of 15 that move within groove 262), the first rotational counter-stop interacts with a first rotational stop of the rotation- locking element, the second rotational counter-stop interacts with a second rotational stop of the rotation-locking element.
Re-claims 18 and 19, the extrusion structure is at least two spaced apart grooves (formed by 262, and internal structure), a radial protrusion of the rotation-locking element (such as one of 14 or 15) engages the groove in a longitudinal manner.
Re-claim 21, the rotation-locking element 14 is interpreted as having a shoe structure and slides within the groove, the sliding shoe 14 forms the rotational stop.
Re-claim 22, a pressure force transmitter 7 is mounted in an opening of the spindle, the transmitter 7 is connected to an input rod 1 of the actuation device, the master brake cylinder is actuated by displacing the pressure force transmitter rod.
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.
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. in view of JP 2010-167987 A to Kimura et al.
Pan et al. fail to teach the rotational stop having a sliding coating.
Kimura et al. teach a threaded spindle of an actuation device having PTFE or other resin with good sliding performance (see page 3 paragraph 2 of the translation). The low friction material of the PTFE would leave a coating during use and degradation, as portions of the material would coat the groove surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the rotational stop features of Pan et al. with a lubricating type material (such as PTFE) as taught by Kimura et al., thus reducing frictional resistance of the rotational stop when sliding within the assigned groove.
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. in view of CN 210653065 U to Wang et al.
Re-claim 23, Pan et al. show a casing wall having plurality of mounting surfaces (such as a front flat surface that attaches to plate 23 and a motor mounting surface along a bottom).
However, Pan et al. is silent regarding the location of a control unit along the surface adjacent 232 (connector mounting cavity) which is part of plate 23.
Wang et al. teach an actuation device having a control unit 2 mounted upon a top of the actuation device (see figure 1). Mounting the control unit with the actuation device produces a single unit that is easily connected to a vehicle, requiring minimum wiring. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided at the top surface and with the mounting cavity 232 of Pan et al. a control unit as suggested by Wang et al., thus producing a unitary brake actuating structure.
Re-claim 24, Pan et al. teach a flat second surface (bottom surface) upon which the electric motor is arranged (see motor mounting cavity 234 as part of plate 23). This cavity aligns with the second flat surface.
Re-claim 25, the casing wall has at least one opening (such as at the front or rear).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. in view of US 4,488,742 to Schopper et al.
Pan et al. teach a method for producing an actuation device for a brake system, the method comprising the following steps: providing a housing 26 with at least one rotational counter-stop 262 and a gearing device 2/3/4 with a displaceable threaded spindle 5; connecting a rotation-locking element 14/15 to the threaded spindle against rotation; arranging the gearing device in such a way that the threaded spindle is at least partially arranged in the housing and a rotational stop of the rotation-locking element interacts with the rotational counter-stop of the housing to form an anti-rotation device for the threaded spindle; and operatively connecting an electric motor to the gearing device in a way that the gearing device is driven by the electric motor; the housing together with the rotational counter-stop is manufactured by various methods including “stretch forming” and injection molding. However, Pan et al. fail to specifically teach using an extrusion method (although stretch forming may in fact be this method).
Schopper et al. teach the use of extrusion molding processes when forming tubular elements, such as part of a master cylinder assembly. This manufacturing process is a cost effective manner by which one can produce tubular structures (see column 2 lines 49-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when having produced the housing of Pan et al. to have looked to Schopper et al. and their suggestion of extrusion molding, thus reducing costs associated with the production process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Usui, Bresser, Jungbecker, Nakano, Pan and Xue each teach an actuation device with an anti-rotation feature part of a threaded spindle. Arakawa teaches a mounting arrangement for a control unit.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128.
The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding
should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW /THOMAS J WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 September 1, 2026
