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 .
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 (please see 112 below)
Claim 6 (please see 112 below)
Claim 14 (please see 112 below)
Claim 16
Claim 17
Claim 18
Claim 19
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:
Figs. 1 and 3 lack hatching in agreement with claimed parts (ex. 4, claimed “damping element”, material unclear (metal?))
Fig. 2 lacks axis labels in English
Fig. 3 has a reference character “30”. The specification at [0057] states: “[0057] Fig. 3 shows a detail of a hydraulic block 300 having an installed a pedal travel simulator 100 according to Fig. 1. For a simplified illustration, the mechanical components of the pedal travel simulator 100 have been concealed by a redacted area 30.” This is not understood. Applicant’s Fig. 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
626
916
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The “mechanical components” appear to be partially illustrated, as there is for example a piston 1, a simulator cap 3, and a damping element 4 in Fig. 3. Further, in Fig. 1 there is no box designated 30. Still further, there is a second box (“2”, annotated above) that is apparently separate from the box designated 30 (“1”, above), whose contents are unknown. The disclosed structure is not understood.
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: Claim 14 lacks antecedent basis in the specification. Claim 15 lacks antecedent basis in the specification.
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:
“an elastic element that makes direct contact with the simulator piston,...wherein, in a first portion of a simulator force-travel curve, a simulator piston force is provided by the elastic element, wherein, in a second portion of the simulator force-travel curve, the simulator piston force is provided by the elastic element and the damping element in parallel” in Claim 1, interpreted as elastic element 2 (ex. [0047] The elastic element 2 is a sleeve-shaped spiral spring, which is arranged under preload in the pedal travel simulator 100.”)
“a damping element, wherein, in a first portion of a simulator force-travel curve, a simulator piston force is provided by the elastic element, wherein, in a second portion of the simulator force-travel curve, the simulator piston force is provided by the elastic element and the damping element in parallel” in Claim 1, interpreted as damping element 4 (ex. [0048] Arranged along the central longitudinal axis 8 is a force-transmitting element 7 which, after passing through an air gap 12, presses against a damping element 4”).
“a force-transmitting element is rigidly coupled to the simulator piston, wherein the force-transmitting element presses against the damping element after the first portion of the simulator force-travel curve has been passed through” in Claim 13, interpreted as force-transmitting element 7 (ex. [0048] - Arranged along the central longitudinal axis 8 is a force-transmitting element 7 which, after passing through an air gap 12, presses against a damping element 4.)
“wherein the force-transmitting element is movable within the hydraulic block in the first portion of the simulator force-travel curve and is movable at least partially out of the hydraulic block in the second portion of the simulator force-travel curve” in Claim 17, interpreted as force-transmitting element 7 (ex. [0048] - Arranged along the central longitudinal axis 8 is a force-transmitting element 7 which, after passing through an air gap 12, presses against a damping element 4.)
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 on claim interpretation:
The preambles have been considered limiting to the structure of the claimed invention (MPEP 2111.02).
In Claim 1, “comprising a simulator piston that is received in a simulator cylinder bore so as to be movable along a central longitudinal axis” has been interpreted as a positive recitation of the presence of the “simulator cylinder bore”.
In the claims, absent further recitations, “supported” and the like are interpreted broadly and not read as being in direct contact or similar limitations.
In Claim 10, “hysteresis loop” is discussed in the specification at [0028] in relation to the damping characteristics of the elastic element and the damping element.
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.
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 1-19 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim limitation “damping element” 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 specification identifies “4” as a damping element. As best understood, there is no description of the material of the “damping element” in the specification or a positive recitation of the makeup of damping element 4. 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 2 recites “wherein the elastic element is arranged along the central longitudinal axis and has two axial ends, wherein the elastic element is supported in particular at the axial ends.” This is indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “wherein the elastic element is supported”, and the claim also recites “in particular at the axial ends” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 5 recites “Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, comprising a simulator cap by which the pedal travel simulator is shielded with respect to an installation space, wherein the damping element is arranged entirely in the simulator cap.” This is indefinite. Claim 5 depends from Claim 1. Claim 1 has established for example “a simulator piston that is received in a simulator cylinder bore”; the location of “installation space” of Claim 5 with regards to these parts is indefinite, as are the metes and bounds of the term. Additionally, “the pedal travel simulator” is the claimed apparatus; that is, the “pedal travel simulator” is the extent of the claimed apparatus and as the “simulator cap” is part of the “pedal travel simulator”, the “simulator cap” “shield[ing]” itself is not understood. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
Claim 6 recites “wherein one end of the elastic element is supported positionally fixedly relative to the damping element”. This is indefinite. The “damping element” is identified in the specification as “damping element 4”. “Damping element 4” moves (ex. [0050]). Therefore the claimed “positionally fixedly” is not understood. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the simulator cap" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 introduces a “simulator cap” but Claim 7 depends from Claim 1, not Claim 5.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the simulator cap" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 introduces a “simulator cap” but Claim 8 depends from Claim 1, not Claim 5.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the simulator cap" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 introduces a “simulator cap” but Claim 12 depends from Claim 1, not Claim 5.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the force-transmitting element presses against the damping element after the first portion of the simulator force-travel curve has been passed through”. This is indefinite. “after” can be a temporal description; the claim is indefinite if this is a series of method steps in an apparatus claim (MPEP 2173.05(p) II); this may be referring to the second portion introduced in Claim 1 or this may be referring to something else. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the force-transmitting element has a greater extent along a movement direction of the simulator piston than transversely with respect to the movement direction, wherein the ratio is at least five to one, and in that a hollow cylinder is formed between the force-transmitting element and a side wall of the simulator piston, in which hollow cylinder the elastic element is arranged.” This is indefinite. The claim language (“and in that a hollow cylinder is formed between the force-transmitting element and a side wall of the simulator piston, in which hollow cylinder the elastic element is arranged”) is non-idiomatic. The claim recites the limitation "the ratio " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The language of “hollow cylinder” appears to be attempting to claiming an annular space rather than a solid part (a cylinder); the drawings do not show a “hollow cylinder” as claimed.
Claim 15 recites “wherein a volume occupied by the elastic element and the volume occupied by the damping element are disjoint volumes both in a rest state and in an operational state”. The claim recites the limitation "the volume occupied by the damping element" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 2 recites “a volume...” but this is thought to be a separate volume.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the force-transmitting element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “wherein a fluid port of the pedal travel simulator is switchably connected to a pressure chamber of the master brake cylinder.” This is indefinite. The claim is indefinite how the “switchably connected” is achieved. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
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, 2, 4-10, 12, 13, 15 as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 11628815).
Regarding Claim 1,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake, comprising a simulator piston (22, Figs. 1-12) that is received in a simulator cylinder bore (211) so as to be movable along a central longitudinal axis, an elastic element (24) that makes direct contact with the simulator piston, and a damping element (25), wherein, in a first portion (with L1, ex. Figs. 3-4) of a simulator force-travel curve, a simulator piston force is provided by the elastic element, wherein, in a second portion (with L2 and/or L3) of the simulator force-travel curve, the simulator piston force is provided by the elastic element and the damping element in parallel.
Regarding Claim 2,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, wherein the elastic element is arranged along the central longitudinal axis and has two axial ends (ex. left end and right end as viewed in Fig. 2, 4-10, 12), wherein the elastic element is supported in particular at the axial ends (as shown in Figs. 2, 4-10, 12).
Regarding Claim 4,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, wherein the elastic element has a linear force-travel characteristic (ex. Col. 9, lines 44-47).
Regarding Claim 5,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1,comprising a simulator cap (ex. 21) by which the pedal travel simulator is shielded with respect to an installation space (ex. space internal to 21), wherein the damping element is arranged entirely in the simulator cap (Figs. 2, 4-10, 12).
Regarding Claim 6,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, wherein one end (ex. right side of 24 in Figs. 2, 4-10, 12) of the elastic element is supported positionally fixedly relative to the damping element.
Examiner note: Right side of 24 moves with damping element 25, thereby maintaining the same relative position (please note 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 7,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, wherein the elastic element is supported by way of a first end (ex. left end) on the simulator piston and the elastic element is supported by way of a second end (ex. right end) on the simulator cap (21 or 23).
Regarding Claim 8,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, wherein a support sleeve (26) is provided between the simulator cap (ex. 21) and one end of the elastic element, wherein the elastic element is supported via the support sleeve on the simulator cap, and the support sleeve is arranged in the simulator cap.
Regarding Claim 9,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1 wherein, in an operational state, a fluid pressure is applied to the simulator piston (ex. via 164, ex. Col. 8, lines 12-26).
Regarding Claim 10,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, wherein the damping element (25) has a larger hysteresis loop than the elastic element (24).
Regarding Claim 12,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, wherein the simulator cap has a receiving bore (with 211b) in which the simulator piston is received when it moves along the second portion of the simulator force-travel curve during operation.
Regarding Claim 13,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, wherein a force-transmitting element (ex. 223 in Figs. 2, 3-5, 7-9, 12 or 22a2 in Fig. 6) is rigidly coupled to the simulator piston, wherein the force-transmitting element presses against the damping element after the first portion of the simulator force-travel curve has been passed through.
Regarding Claim 15,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, wherein a volume occupied by the elastic element and the volume occupied by the damping element are disjoint volumes both in a rest state and in an operational state (Figs. 2, 4-10, 12).
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Erviti et al. (US 11643061).
Regarding Claim 1,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake, comprising a simulator piston (44, Figs. 1-8) that is received in a simulator cylinder bore (with 38, annotated below) so as to be movable along a central longitudinal axis, an elastic element (56) that makes direct contact with the simulator piston, and a damping element (112, Fig. 4 or 112a, Fig. 6), wherein, in a first portion of a simulator force-travel curve (ex. 56 depressed), a simulator piston force is provided by the elastic element, wherein, in a second portion of the simulator force-travel curve (ex. 56 and 112/112a depressed), the simulator piston force is provided by the elastic element and the damping element in parallel.
PNG
media_image2.png
736
920
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
618
801
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, wherein the elastic element is arranged along the central longitudinal axis and has two axial ends (Fig. 4, 6), wherein the elastic element is supported in particular at the axial ends.
Regarding Claim 4,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, wherein the elastic element has a linear force-travel characteristic (ex. Col. 19, lines 60-62).
Regarding Claim 5,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, comprising a simulator cap (ex. 36) by which the pedal travel simulator is shielded with respect to an installation space, wherein the damping element is arranged entirely in the simulator cap.
Regarding Claim 6,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, wherein one end of the elastic element is supported positionally fixedly relative to the damping element.
Examiner note: Both 56 and 112 move with 90, thereby maintaining the same relative position (please note 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 7,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, wherein the elastic element is supported by way of a first end on the simulator piston and the elastic element is supported by way of a second end on the simulator cap (Fig. 4, 6).
Regarding Claim 8,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, wherein a support sleeve (either 90 or 58) is provided between the simulator cap and one end of the elastic element, wherein the elastic element is supported via the support sleeve on the simulator cap, and the support sleeve is arranged in the simulator cap.
Regarding Claim 9,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1 wherein, in an operational state, a fluid pressure is applied to the simulator piston (Fig. 4 or 6, note Fig. 1 showing connection to 30).
Regarding Claim 10,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, wherein the damping element has a larger hysteresis loop than the elastic element (Fig. 4 or 6).
Regarding Claim 11,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, wherein the elastic element and the damping element are arranged in a working space, wherein the working space extends at least partially into the simulator cap, and the working space is filled with a gas (ex. Col. 20, lines 3-8).
Regarding Claim 12,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, wherein the simulator cap has a receiving bore (annotated below) in which the simulator piston is received when it moves along the second portion of the simulator force-travel curve during operation.
PNG
media_image4.png
736
719
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
618
797
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, wherein a force-transmitting element (annotated below) is rigidly coupled to the simulator piston, wherein the force-transmitting element presses against the damping element after the first portion of the simulator force-travel curve has been passed through.
PNG
media_image6.png
454
546
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
584
500
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15,
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1, wherein a volume occupied by the elastic element and the volume occupied by the damping element are disjoint volumes both in a rest state and in an operational state (Fig. 4 or 6).
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.
Claim 3, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Misunou et al. (US 10328919).
Regarding Claim 3, Li teaches
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1.
Li does not explicitly teach
wherein the elastic element is installed under axial preload.
Misunou teaches
For a pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake (ex. Fig. 9),
wherein the elastic element (52, Col. 11, lines 49-51) is installed under axial preload.
Since both references are directed to brake system of a motor vehicle, 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 mounting of the elastic element of Li to be installed under axial preload as taught by Misunou in order to provide an appropriate manner of mounting the spring that would perform equally well with predictable results.
Claim 14, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 14, Li teaches
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 13, wherein the force-transmitting element has a greater extent along a movement direction of the simulator piston than transversely with respect to the movement direction (ex. Fig. 6, with 22a2), and in that a hollow cylinder is formed between the force-transmitting element and a side wall of the simulator piston, in which hollow cylinder the elastic element is arranged.
Li does not appear to teach
wherein the ratio is at least five to one.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the ratio of at least five to one solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the force-transmitting element transmits force and it appears that the force-transmitting element of Li would perform equally well with a ratio as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the force-transmitting element of Li by utilizing the specific ratio as claimed for the purpose of transmitting force.
Claims 16-19, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Briesewitz et al. (US 20220135014).
Regarding Claim 16, Li teaches
A housing for a brake system of a motor vehicle, comprising a pedal travel simulator according to Claim 1 (see Claim 1 citations).
Li does not teach
Hydraulic block for a brake system of a motor vehicle
and comprising a plurality of bores for receiving electromagnetic valves.
Li states “The present invention is not limited to the embodiments described above. For example, the retainer 26 need not be provided... Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 12, the cylinder 21 may be an integrally molded product with the master cylinder 1 (main cylinder 11). This makes it possible to reduce the size of the entire vehicle braking device BF and reduce the number of components.... The description of the first embodiment and the drawings can be referred to in the description of the second to sixth embodiments. Furthermore, the features of each embodiment can be combined with each other as much as possible. In addition, the “bottomed cylindrical” or “cylindrical” portion in the present embodiment merely needs to be a “bottomed tubular” or “tubular” portion, and for example, the outer shape of the cross-section is not limited to a circular shape, and for example, may be a rectangular shape or a shape having a curve and a straight line.” (ex. Col. 15, lines 42-59 and Col. 16, lines 1-11)
Briesewitz teaches
Hydraulic block (3, Fig. 1) for a brake system of a motor vehicle, comprising a hole for a pedal travel simulator (1, 7) and comprising a plurality of bores (5) for receiving electromagnetic valves.
[0005] It is therefore the object of the present application to design a hydraulic unit of the stated type in a manner which is as simple, economical and capable of miniaturization as possible without at the same time having to accept restrictions in respect of the functionality of the individual components.
Since both references are directed to brake system of a motor vehicle, 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 housing(s) of Li to be a hydraulic block type as taught by Briesewitz in order to provide a hydraulic unit for a brake system that is simple, economical and capable of miniaturization as possible without at the same time having to accept restrictions in respect of the functionality of the individual components.
Regarding Claim 17,
Hydraulic block according to Claim 16, wherein the force-transmitting element (Li - ex. 223 in Figs. 2, 3-5, 7-9, 12 or 22a2 in Fig. 6) is movable within the hydraulic block in the first portion of the simulator force-travel curve and is movable at least partially out of the hydraulic block (Briesewitz - note body 3 with cover 7, ex. Fig. 3, [0017]) in the second portion of the simulator force-travel curve.
Regarding Claim 18,
Hydraulic block according to Claim 16 wherein the hydraulic block has a master brake cylinder bore (Briesewitz - 2, Fig. 1) for a master brake cylinder, wherein the simulator cylinder bore (Briesewitz - 1, Fig. 1) is arranged orthogonally with respect to the master brake cylinder bore.
Regarding Claim 19,
Hydraulic block according to Claim 16 wherein a fluid port of the pedal travel simulator is switchably connected (Li - 82 or 83, Fig. 1) to a pressure chamber of the master brake cylinder.
Claim 3, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erviti in view of Misunou.
Regarding Claim 3, Erviti teaches
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 1.
Erviti does not explicitly teach
wherein the elastic element is installed under axial preload.
Misunou teaches
For a pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake (ex. Fig. 9),
wherein the elastic element (52, Col. 11, lines 49-51) is installed under axial preload.
Since both references are directed to brake system of a motor vehicle, 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 mounting of the elastic element of Erviti to be installed under axial preload as taught by Misunou in order to provide an appropriate manner of mounting the spring that would perform equally well with predictable results.
Claim 14, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erviti in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 14, Erviti teaches
Pedal travel simulator for a motor vehicle brake according to Claim 13, wherein the force-transmitting element has a greater extent along a movement direction of the simulator piston than transversely with respect to the movement direction (annotated below), and in that a hollow cylinder is formed between the force-transmitting element and a side wall of the simulator piston, in which hollow cylinder the elastic element is arranged.
PNG
media_image6.png
454
546
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
584
500
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Erviti does not appear to teaech
wherein the ratio is at least five to one.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the ratio of at least five to one solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the force-transmitting element transmits force and it appears that the force-transmitting element of Erviti would perform equally well with a ratio as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the force-transmitting element of Erviti by utilizing the specific ratio as claimed for the purpose of transmitting force.
Claims 16-19, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erviti in view of Briesewitz.
Regarding Claim 16, Erviti teaches
A housing for a brake system of a motor vehicle, comprising a pedal travel simulator according to Claim 1 (see Claim 1 citations).
Erviti does not teach
Hydraulic block for a brake system of a motor vehicle
and comprising a plurality of bores for receiving electromagnetic valves.
Erviti teaches a housing for the master cylinder 16 and a housing for the pedal travel simulator.
Briesewitz teaches
Hydraulic block (3, Fig. 1) for a brake system of a motor vehicle, comprising a hole for a pedal travel simulator (1, 7) and comprising a plurality of bores (5) for receiving electromagnetic valves.
[0005] It is therefore the object of the present application to design a hydraulic unit of the stated type in a manner which is as simple, economical and capable of miniaturization as possible without at the same time having to accept restrictions in respect of the functionality of the individual components.
Since both references are directed to brake system of a motor vehicle, 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 housings of Erviti to be a hydraulic block type as taught by Briesewitz in order to provide a hydraulic unit for a brake system that is simple, economical and capable of miniaturization as possible without at the same time having to accept restrictions in respect of the functionality of the individual components.
Regarding Claim 17,
Hydraulic block according to Claim 16, wherein the force-transmitting element (annotated below) is movable within the hydraulic block in the first portion of the simulator force-travel curve and is movable at least partially out of the hydraulic block (Briesewitz - note body 3 with cover 7, ex. Fig. 3, [0017]) in the second portion of the simulator force-travel curve.
PNG
media_image6.png
454
546
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
584
500
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18,
Hydraulic block according to Claim 16 wherein the hydraulic block has a master brake cylinder bore (Briesewitz - 2, Fig. 1) for a master brake cylinder, wherein the simulator cylinder bore (Briesewitz - 1, Fig. 1) is arranged orthogonally with respect to the master brake cylinder bore.
Regarding Claim 19,
Hydraulic block according to Claim 16 wherein a fluid port of the pedal travel simulator is switchably connected (Erviti - 34, Fig. 1) to a pressure chamber of the master brake cylinder.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those items on the 892 each teach elements of the instant invention related to motor vehicle brakes.
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
Prosecution Insights