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 Amendment/Arguments
This office action is in response to applicant’s reply filed 9/15/25. Amended Claims 1-11 are pending.
Regarding the previous drawing objections, applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image1.png
656
1048
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. MPEP 608.02(d) quoting 37 CFR 1.83(a) states (emphasis examiner’s):
37 C.F.R. 1.83 Content of drawing.
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
There are multiple features of the invention specified in the claims that are not shown in the drawings. Additionally the objection related to unlabeled boxes was not argued by applicant and the boxes continue to lack labels. The drawing objections are maintained.
Regarding the previous specification objections, these are not addressed in the remarks so these are maintained.
Regarding the previous claim interpretations under 112(f) and the previous rejections under 112(b), applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image2.png
662
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s remarks contain no citations for their arguments. Applicant’s remarks have not addressed all previous 112(b) rejections. Applicant has not amended the claims to either clearly not invoke 112(f) or to use “means” to clearly invoke 112(f). The claim language continues to raise issues.
Regarding the previous prior art rejections, applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image3.png
390
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been filly considered but are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Each previously applied reference continues to teach the amended language and the references are therefore held. To expedite examination and promote compact prosecution, Burgdorf is also applied to the amended claim language.
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 claimed subject matter of:
Claim 1
Claim 2
Claim 7
Claim 8
Claim 9
Claim 10
Claim 11
must be shown 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.
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) (6, 7, 8, 9, 14 - Figure) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels; alternatively, graphical drawing symbols may be used for conventional elements when appropriate. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Please see 112(b) section below for discrepancies between the specification and the claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a mechanism, using which the piston can be deflected and/or returned” in Claim 7 (unknown interpretation, please see 112(b) below)
“a control device, wherein the pressure regulator can be operated by the control device” in Claim 9 (unknown interpretation, please see 112(b) below)
“a control device, wherein the pressure regulator can be operated by the control device” in Claim 11 (unknown interpretation, please see 112(b) below)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner notes:
Claim 3 recites “spring element” which was considered for interpretation under 112(f) but “spring” was considered sufficient structure for a class of objects as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 9 recites “a brake booster device” which was considered for interpretation under 112(f) but “brake booster” was considered sufficient structure for a class of objects as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 11 recites “a brake booster device” which was considered for interpretation under 112(f) but “brake booster” was considered sufficient structure for a class of objects as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
Claim 4-5 are 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.
Claim 4 has been amended to recite “wherein the spring element is dimensioned such that a spring force of the spring element is sufficient to return the piston from a braking position to a neutral position under ordinary operating conditions of the brake booster device.” Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘wherein the spring element is dimensioned such that a spring force of the spring element is sufficient to return the piston from a braking position to a neutral position under ordinary operating conditions of the brake booster device’ in the application as filed.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 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 1 recites in part “wherein the chamber can be connected to a pressure regulator so that the piston can be at least partially returned using the pressure regulator”. This is indefinite. The metes and bounds of “pressure regulator” are indefinite. Applicant’s disclosure shows a blank box with reference character 14, the box 14 shown directly connected only to the two chambers, chamber 12 and chamber 17. Applicant’s specification at p. 8, lines 8-27 uses the term “pressure regulator” to refer to a variety of elements and configurations:
The pressure regulator 14 can be comprised by the brake booster device 1, be arranged externally thereto and represent an independent apparatus, or a driving stability system (ESP) can assume the role of the pressure regulator 14 (if a plurality of pressure regulators is present, the ESP can then also be designated as a further pressure regulator).
The pressure regulator 14 can be connected to or comprise a pump and a storage apparatus for a hydraulic fluid and can bring about a certain volume of fluid to build up or reduce a certain pressure at the master brake cylinder 10, with which a pressure can be generated at the master brake cylinder 10 against the movement for the braking effect.
The pressure regulator 14 is operated by a control device not shown in the figures. The control device can be designed as a component of the brake booster device 1 or separately from the brake booster device 1; it may, for example, be a control device of a driving stability system (ESP).
The pistons (22, 23) in the master brake cylinder 10 can thus be returned by means of the hydraulic pressure built up by the pressure regulator 14.
If applicant is attempting to invoke 112(f), then the presence of “means” would be an appropriate manner to do so (MPEP 2181). Even if this was the assumed intent, which is not clear, the metes and bounds are still unclear. “pressure regulator” is a term of art that refers to types of valves (examples include US 5549361 - 96, US 5667285 - 50, 51, US 9205822, US 3880476 or cited Isono below). Applicant’s described “pressure regulator” does not appear to agree with this nor is there a special definition given. MPEP 2111.01 III and IV and MPEP 2173.05(a) both discuss meanings of limitations. Particularly, MPEP 2173.05(a) states “The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed.” As presented, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite. Claims 9 and 11 both have the same issue.
Claim 4 recites “a neutral position under ordinary operating conditions of the brake booster device”. The term “normal” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ordinary” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “ordinary operating conditions of the brake booster device” is rendered indefinite as a result.
Claim limitation “a mechanism, using which the piston can be deflected and/or returned” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim. At p. 7, lines 9-11 describes a “mechanism” but does not disclose the claim language. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the return force applied by the electric motor" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “a control device, wherein the pressure regulator can be operated by the control device” in Claim 9 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the brake system further comprises a vehicle stability system, wherein the vehicle stability system includes the pressure regulator and/or the control device”. This is indefinite. The metes and bounds of “a vehicle stability system” is indefinite. While examiner does not believe this to be invoking 112(f), “system” can sometimes be considered a generic placeholder. If applicant desires a 112(f) interpretation the presence of “means” would be an appropriate manner to do so. MPEP 2111.01 III and IV and MPEP 2173.05(a) both discuss meaning of limitations. Particularly, MPEP 2173.05(a) states “The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed.” Alternatively, it may be that either the “the pressure regulator and/or the control device” are sufficient to be considered a “vehicle stability system” given the claim construction. As presented, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
Claim limitation “a control device, wherein the pressure regulator can be operated by the control device” in Claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Those claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected as being rendered indefinite by virtue of their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-11, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al. (US 10752227).
Examiner note: For the purposes of examination, claim limitation “pressure regulator” for this rejection has been interpreted as a best guess given the language issues (please see 112(b) section above). Examiner also notes that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114 II).
Regarding Claim 1,
A brake booster device, comprising:
a reservoir (30, Fig. 1); and
a master brake cylinder (with 20) having at least one chamber (ex. 20a or 20b) and at least one piston (ex. 21a or 22a) arranged in the chamber, wherein the chamber can be connected to a pressure regulator (ex. 50 or 100 or 71) so that the piston can be at least partially returned using the pressure regulator, wherein the chamber can be connected to the reservoir, and wherein a valve (ex. 61 or 60 or 75 or 76) is arranged between the chamber and the reservoir, wherein each supply line extending between the pressure regulator and the chamber is arranged through a cylinder housing of the master brake cylinder such that a volume flow from the pressure regulator into the chamber is enabled in any position of the piston (Figs. 1-6).
Regarding Claim 2,
The brake booster device according to claim 1, wherein the valve is a check valve (61 or 75).
Regarding Claim 3,
The brake booster device according to claim 1, wherein at least one spring element (21b or 22b), which exerts a return force on the piston, is arranged in the chamber.
Regarding Claim 4,
The brake booster device according to claim 3, wherein the spring element is dimensioned such that a spring force of the spring element is sufficient to return the piston from a braking position to a neutral position under ordinary operating conditions of the brake booster device (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5,
The brake booster device according to claim 4, wherein an additional return force can be exerted on the piston using the pressure regulator when the spring force of the spring element is not sufficient to return the piston to the neutral position (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6,
The brake booster device according to claim 3, wherein the spring element is a helical spring, which is arranged on the piston (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 7,
The brake booster device according to claim 1, wherein the brake booster device has an electric motor (120) and a mechanism (with 114), using which the piston can be deflected and/or returned.
Regarding Claim 8,
The brake booster device according to claim 7, wherein an additional return force can be exerted on the piston using the pressure regulator when the return force applied by the electric motor is not sufficient to return the piston from a braking position to a neutral position (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9,
A brake system, comprising:
a brake booster device (ex. one of 100 or 71, Fig. 1);
a pressure regulator (ex. 50 or other of 100 or 71); and
a control device (electronic control unit), wherein the pressure regulator can be operated by the control device (ex. Col. 12, lines 21-34; Col. 23, lines 34-Col. 24, line 44); wherein the brake booster device includes:
a reservoir (30), and
a master brake cylinder (with 20) having at least one chamber (ex. 20a or 20b) and at least one piston (ex. 21a or 22a) arranged in the chamber, wherein the chamber can be connected to the pressure regulator so that the piston can be at least partially returned using the pressure regulator, wherein the chamber can be connected to the reservoir, and wherein a valve (ex. 60 or 61 or 75 or 76) is arranged between the chamber and the reservoir, wherein each supply line extending between the pressure regulator and the chamber is arranged through a cylinder housing of the master brake cylinder such that a volume flow from the pressure regulator into the chamber is enabled in any position of the piston (Figs. 1-6).
Regarding Claim 10,
The brake system according to claim 9, wherein the brake system further comprises a vehicle stability system, wherein the vehicle stability system includes the pressure regulator (ex. 50 or 100 or 71) and/or the control device (electronic control unit).
Examiner note: Alternatively note Col. 1, lines 24-36.
Regarding Claim 11,
A vehicle, comprising:
a brake system (ex. Fig. 1), including:
a brake booster device (ex. one of 100 or 71, Fig. 1);
a pressure regulator (ex. 50 or other of 100 or 71); and
a control device (electronic control unit), wherein the pressure regulator can be operated by the control device (ex. Col. 12, lines 21-34; Col. 23, lines 34-Col. 24, line 44); wherein the brake booster device includes:
a reservoir (30), and
a master brake cylinder (with 20) having at least one chamber (ex. 20a or 20b) and at least one piston (ex. 21a or 22a) arranged in the chamber, wherein the chamber can be connected to the pressure regulator so that the piston can be at least partially returned using the pressure regulator, wherein the chamber can be connected to the reservoir, and wherein a valve (ex. 60 or 61 or 75 or 76) is arranged between the chamber and the reservoir, wherein each supply line extending between the pressure regulator and the chamber is arranged through a cylinder housing of the master brake cylinder such that a volume flow from the pressure regulator into the chamber is enabled in any position of the piston (Figs. 1-6).
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9-11, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isono et al. (US 6412882)
Examiner note: For the purposes of examination, claim limitation “pressure regulator” for this rejection has been interpreted in accordance with the term of art. Examiner also notes that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114 II).
Regarding Claim 1,
A brake booster device, comprising:
a reservoir (120, Fig. 19); and
a master brake cylinder (360) having at least one chamber (ex. 378) and at least one piston (370) arranged in the chamber, wherein the chamber can be connected to a pressure regulator (436, Figs. 19-20) so that the piston can be at least partially returned using the pressure regulator, wherein the chamber can be connected to the reservoir, and wherein a valve (ex. 246; or 434 or 432 or 192 or 190) is arranged between the chamber and the reservoir, wherein each supply line extending between the pressure regulator and the chamber is arranged through a cylinder housing of the master brake cylinder such that a volume flow from the pressure regulator into the chamber is enabled in any position of the piston (Fig. 19).
Regarding Claim 2,
The brake booster device according to claim 1, wherein the valve is a check valve (ex. 246).
Regarding Claim 7,
The brake booster device according to claim 1, wherein the brake booster device has an electric motor (ex. 168 or 184) and a mechanism (ex. 186 or 170), using which the piston can be deflected and/or returned.
Regarding Claim 9,
A brake system, comprising:
a brake booster device (ex. 170 or 186, Fig. 19);
a pressure regulator (436); and
a control device (brake controller 300, ex. Col. 25, line 16-Col. 26, line 8), wherein the pressure regulator can be operated by the control device (ex. control device operates valves, pumps, motors of system thereby “operat[ing]” “pressure regulator”); wherein the brake booster device includes:
a reservoir (120), and
a master brake cylinder (360) having at least one chamber (ex. 378) and at least one piston (370) arranged in the chamber, wherein the chamber can be connected to the pressure regulator so that the piston can be at least partially returned using the pressure regulator, wherein the chamber can be connected to the reservoir, and wherein a valve (ex. 246; or 434 or 432 or 192 or 190) is arranged between the chamber and the reservoir, wherein each supply line extending between the pressure regulator and the chamber is arranged through a cylinder housing of the master brake cylinder such that a volume flow from the pressure regulator into the chamber is enabled in any position of the piston (Fig. 19).
Regarding Claim 10,
The brake system according to claim 9, wherein the brake system further comprises a vehicle stability system, wherein the vehicle stability system includes the pressure regulator (436) and/or the control device (300).
Examiner note: Alternatively note ex. Col. 41 , lines 13-62, Col. 39, lines 9-13.
Regarding Claim 11,
A vehicle, comprising:
a brake system (Fig. 19), including:
a brake booster device (ex. 170 or 186, Fig. 19);
a pressure regulator (436); and
a control device (brake controller 300, ex. Col. 25, line 16-Col. 26, line 8), wherein the pressure regulator can be operated by the control device (ex. control device operates valves, pumps, motors of system thereby “operat[ing]” “pressure regulator”); wherein the brake booster device includes:
a reservoir (120), and
a master brake cylinder (360) having at least one chamber (ex. 378) and at least one piston (370) arranged in the chamber, wherein the chamber can be connected to the pressure regulator so that the piston can be at least partially returned using the pressure regulator, wherein the chamber can be connected to the reservoir, and wherein a valve (ex. 246; or 434 or 432 or 192 or 190) is arranged between the chamber and the reservoir, wherein each supply line extending between the pressure regulator and the chamber is arranged through a cylinder housing of the master brake cylinder such that a volume flow from the pressure regulator into the chamber is enabled in any position of the piston (Fig. 19).
Claims 1-8, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansmann et al. (DE 102016211012).
Examiner note: For the purposes of examination, claim limitation “pressure regulator” for this rejection has been interpreted as a best guess given the language issues (please see 112(b) section above). Examiner also notes that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114 II).
Regarding Claim 1,
A brake booster device, comprising:
a reservoir (8, Figs. 1-2); and
a master brake cylinder (3) having at least one chamber (ex. rightmost in Figs.) and at least one piston (ex. rightmost in Figs.) arranged in the chamber, wherein the chamber can be connected to a pressure regulator (ex. 19 or 11) so that the piston can be at least partially returned using the pressure regulator, wherein the chamber can be connected to the reservoir, and wherein a valve (10 or 9) is arranged between the chamber and the reservoir, wherein each supply line extending between the pressure regulator and the chamber is arranged through a cylinder housing of the master brake cylinder such that a volume flow from the pressure regulator into the chamber is enabled in any position of the piston (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 2,
The brake booster device according to claim 1, wherein the valve is a check valve (10).
Regarding Claim 3,
The brake booster device according to claim 1, wherein at least one spring element (rightmost in Figs.), which exerts a return force on the piston, is arranged in the chamber.
Regarding Claim 4,
The brake booster device according to claim 3, wherein the spring element is dimensioned such that a spring force of the spring element is sufficient to return the piston from a braking position to a neutral position under ordinary operating conditions of the brake booster device (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 5,
The brake booster device according to claim 4, wherein an additional return force can be exerted on the piston using the pressure regulator when the spring force of the spring element is not sufficient to return the piston to the neutral position (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 6,
The brake booster device according to claim 3, wherein the spring element is a helical spring, which is arranged on the piston (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 7,
The brake booster device according to claim 1, wherein the brake booster device has an electric motor (12) and a mechanism (11), using which the piston can be deflected and/or returned.
Examiner note: Alternatively note paragraph 5 (“servo-actuated”) on p. 2 of machine translation.
Regarding Claim 8,
The brake booster device according to claim 7, wherein an additional return force can be exerted on the piston using the pressure regulator when the return force applied by the electric motor is not sufficient to return the piston from a braking position to a neutral position (Figs. 1-2).
Claims 1-6, 9-11, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burgdorf et al. (US 4840436).
Examiner note: For the purposes of examination, claim limitation “pressure regulator” for this rejection has been interpreted as a best guess given the language issues (please see 112(b) section above). Examiner also notes that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114 II).
Regarding Claim 1,
A brake booster device, comprising: a reservoir (20 , Figs. 1-3); and a master brake cylinder having at least one chamber (for either 6 or 7) and at least one piston (6 or 7) arranged in the chamber, wherein the chamber can be connected to a pressure regulator (with motor M and pumps 21, 26) so that the piston can be at least partially returned using the pressure regulator, wherein the chamber can be connected to the reservoir, and wherein a valve (74 or 75 or 82 or 83 or 76 or 77 or 84) is arranged between the chamber and the reservoir, wherein each supply line extending between the pressure regulator and the chamber is arranged through a cylinder housing of the master brake cylinder such that a volume flow from the pressure regulator into the chamber is enabled in any position of the piston (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 2
The brake booster device according to claim 1, wherein the valve is a check valve (82 or 83 or 84).
Regarding Claim 3,
The brake booster device according to claim 1, wherein at least one spring element (for either 6 or 7), which exerts a return force on the piston, is arranged in the chamber.
Regarding Claim 4,
The brake booster device according to claim 3, wherein the spring element is dimensioned such that a spring force of the spring element is sufficient to return the piston from a braking position to a neutral position under ordinary operating conditions of the brake booster device (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 5,
The brake booster device according to claim 4, wherein an additional return force can be exerted on the piston using the pressure regulator when the spring force of the spring element is not sufficient to return the piston to the neutral position (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 6,
The brake booster device according to claim 3, wherein the spring element is a helical spring, which is arranged on the piston (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 9,
A brake system, comprising: a brake booster device (Figs. 1-3); a pressure regulator (with motor M and pumps 21, 26), a control device (28), wherein the pressure regulator can be operated by the control device; wherein the brake booster device includes: a reservoir (20 , Figs. 1-3), and a master brake cylinder having at least one chamber (for either 6 or 7) and at least one piston (6 or 7) arranged in the chamber, wherein the chamber can be connected to the pressure regulator so that the piston can be at least partially returned using the pressure regulator, wherein the chamber can be connected to the reservoir, and wherein a valve (74 or 75 or 82 or 83 or 76 or 77 or 84) is arranged between the chamber and the reservoir, wherein each supply line extending between the pressure regulator and the chamber is arranged through a cylinder housing of the master brake cylinder such that a volume flow from the pressure regulator into the chamber is enabled in any position of the piston (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 10,
The brake system according to claim 9, wherein the brake system further comprises a vehicle stability system, wherein the vehicle stability system includes the pressure valve (74 or 75 or 82 or 83 or 76 or 77 or 84) and/or the control device (28; ex. Col. 3, line 44-Col. 5, line 41).
Regarding Claim 11,
A vehicle, comprising :a brake system (Figs. 1-3), including: a brake booster device (Figs. 1-3), a pressure regulator (with motor M and pumps 21, 26), and a control device (28), wherein the pressure regulator can be operated by the control device, wherein the brake booster device includes: a reservoir (20, Figs. 1-3), and a master brake cylinder having at least one chamber (for either 6 or 7) and at least one piston (6 or 7) arranged in the chamber, wherein the chamber can be connected to the pressure regulator so that the piston can be at least partially returned using the pressure regulator, wherein the chamber can be connected to the reservoir, and wherein a valve (74 or 75 or 82 or 83 or 76 or 77 or 84) is arranged between the chamber and the reservoir, wherein each supply line extending between the pressure regulator and the chamber is arranged through a cylinder housing of the master brake cylinder such that a volume flow from the pressure regulator into the chamber is enabled in any position of the piston (Figs. 1-3).
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.
Claims 9-11, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansmann in view of Isono.
Regarding Claim 9, Hansmann teaches
A brake system, comprising:
a brake booster device (Figs. 1-2);
a pressure regulator (ex. 19 or 11); and
; wherein the brake booster device includes:
a reservoir (8), and
a master brake cylinder (3) having at least one chamber (ex. rightmost in Figs.) and at least one piston (ex. rightmost in Figs.) arranged in the chamber, wherein the chamber can be connected to the pressure regulator so that the piston can be at least partially returned using the pressure regulator, wherein the chamber can be connected to the reservoir, and wherein a valve (10 or 9) is arranged between the chamber and the reservoir, wherein each supply line extending between the pressure regulator and the chamber is arranged through a cylinder housing of the master brake cylinder such that a volume flow from the pressure regulator into the chamber is enabled in any position of the piston (Figs. 1-2).
Hansmann does not teach
a control device, wherein the pressure regulator can be operated by the control device.
While Hansmann teaches sensors (16, 17, and others in Figs. 1-2), solenoid valves (4, 4, 15, 15, 6, 6, 6, 6, 18, 9), and an electric motor 12, there is not a “control device” in the disclosure.
Isono teaches
For a brake system,
a control device (brake controller 300, ex. Col. 25, line 16-Col. 26, line 8), wherein the pressure regulator can be operated by the control device.
Since both references are directed to brake systems, 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 system of Hansmann to include a control device as taught by Isono in order to provide control over the valves, electric motor, and operation of the brake system.
Regarding Claim 10,
The brake system according to claim 9, wherein the brake system further comprises a vehicle stability system, wherein the vehicle stability system includes the pressure regulator (19 or 11) and/or the control device (Isono - 300).
Examiner note: Alternatively note Isono - ex. Col. 41 , lines 13-62, Col. 39, lines 9-13.
Regarding Claim 11,
A vehicle, comprising:
a brake system (Figs. 1-2), including:
brake booster device (Figs. 1-2);
a pressure regulator (ex. 19 or 11); and
; wherein the brake booster device includes:
a reservoir (8), and
a master brake cylinder (3) having at least one chamber (ex. rightmost in Figs.) and at least one piston (ex. rightmost in Figs.) arranged in the chamber, wherein the chamber can be connected to the pressure regulator so that the piston can be at least partially returned using the pressure regulator, wherein the chamber can be connected to the reservoir, and wherein a valve (10 or 9) is arranged between the chamber and the reservoir, wherein each supply line extending between the pressure regulator and the chamber is arranged through a cylinder housing of the master brake cylinder such that a volume flow from the pressure regulator into the chamber is enabled in any position of the piston (Figs. 1-2).
Hansmann does not teach
a control device, wherein the pressure regulator can be operated by the control device.
While Hansmann teaches sensors (16, 17, and others in Figs. 1-2), solenoid valves (4, 4, 15, 15, 6, 6, 6, 6, 18, 9), and an electric motor 12, there is not a “control device” in the disclosure.
Isono teaches
For a brake system,
a control device (brake controller 300, ex. Col. 25, line 16-Col. 26, line 8), wherein the pressure regulator can be operated by the control device.
Since both references are directed to brake systems, 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 system of Hansmann to include a control device as taught by Isono in order to provide control over the valves, electric motor, and operation of the brake system.
Claims 7 and 8, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgdorf in view of Volz et al. (DE 4446525, machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 7, Burgdorf teaches
The brake booster device according to claim 1, wherein the brake booster device has a vacuum booster (3), using which the piston can be deflected and/or returned.
Burgdorf does not teach
wherein the brake booster device has an electric motor and a mechanism, using which the piston can be deflected and/or returned.
Volz teaches
For a brake booster device (Figs. 1-16),
wherein the brake booster device (Fig. 13) has an electric motor (100) and a mechanism (with 137, 98, 95, 101), using which the piston can be deflected and/or returned.
From the translation:
FIGS. 13 and 14 show two further possible embodiments of the usable in advantageous variants of the motor vehicle brake system according to the invention the braking pressure generator in a greatly simplified representation. The basic idea is preferably that the precharge pressure is built up in the master cylinder pressure chambers and that an electromechanically or hydraulically actuated spreading device 98 is arranged between the first (primary) piston 82 and a movable wall 97 which applies the output force of the vacuum brake booster.
In the embodiment shown in FIG. 13, the push rod 95 transmitting the output force of the vacuum brake booster 90 is designed as a non-self-locking spindle, which on the one hand interacts with an internal thread formed in an axial extension or extension 101 of the first (primary) piston 82 and on the other hand, is rotatably supported in a pressure plate 136 which is axially supported on the movable wall 97 or a reaction disk 135 . The spindle 95 is driven by an electric motor 100 , preferably integrated in the movable wall 97 , the rotary movement of which is transmitted to the spindle 95 by means of a gear mechanism 137 .
Of course, a variant is also conceivable in which the push rod as a drivable by an actuator Rack is formed, its translational movement a displacement of the first (primary) piston causes.
If braking is now carried out in the active braking mode, the Driver deceleration request, for example, by one with the Brake pedal interacting brake light switch or by connected to the master cylinder pressure chambers Pressure sensors recognized. This results in a large number of intervention possibilities that are taken up by the electronics can be, e.g. B .:
The drive of the spreading device is designed so that when the electric motor 100 is energized, the drive is reset against the engine torque by the braking force introduced, ie the non-self-locking spindle 95 runs back to its starting position under the action of the braking force and of the reaction force applied by the master brake cylinder.
Another possibility is that the driver deceleration request is recognized both by the brake light switch and the pressure sensors or an actuation force sensor. On the basis of these measured variables, the current supply to the electric motor 100 is influenced by the electronics in such a way that the spindle 95 approaches the end position in a controlled manner.
Since both references are directed to brake booster devices, 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 booster device of Burgdorf to include an electric motor and mechanism as taught by Volz in order to provide large number of intervention possibilities that are taken up by the electronics, allowing for an adjustment of the feel and response of the braking actuation.
Regarding Claim 8, Burgdorf as modified teaches
The brake booster device according to claim 7, wherein an additional return force can be exerted on the piston using the pressure regulator when the return force applied by the electric motor is not sufficient to return the piston from a braking position to a neutral position (Figs. 1-3, as modified).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Biller teaches elements of the instant invention related to a brake booster device in a brake system in a vehicle.
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 MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-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, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745