DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10, 13, 22, and 26) in the reply filed on August 12, 2025 is acknowledged.
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(s) 1, 2, 5-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehab (GB 2540782) and further in view of Braswell (US 4,104,165).
As best depicted in Figures 1, 5, and 6, Ehab is directed to an inflation system comprising an air compressor 18 (claimed fluid pressure source), an air vessel or tank 2, a plurality of sealed fluid pathways (four depicted in Figure 6- one each to a wheel assembly), a condensate drain valve 15, and an electronic control unit 12 (Pages 15 and 16). In such an instance, said condensate valve is described as being “timed” and opening periodically when said compressor is in operation. Thus, Ehab fails to describe a system in which a level of condensate is controllable using an electromechanical control system.
In any event, it is well known and conventional to operate drain valves in general using timers or sensing devices (part of an electromechanical control system). Braswell, for example, describes the alternative use of a timer or a sensor device to operate a drain valve (Column 5, Lines 35+). It is emphasized that control systems including sensors are commonly used in any number of process operations, it being noted that Ehab does in fact disclose the use of control systems including a plurality of sensors (sensors 13, 14, 21, and 25 are associated with control unit 12- Page 17). The specific use of a sensor to identify when to open the condensate valve is consistent with conventional process lines and provides an extremely efficient manner of removing condensate (as opposed to a timer that might open unnecessarily).
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the language “for a trailer comprising an axle and pneumatic tires mounted at each end of the axle” is directed to the intended use of the claimed system and such limitations fail to further define the structure of the claimed system
Regarding claims 5-10, Braswell teaches a timer or sensor that causes a solenoid to become energized and open a drain valve. This arrangement is seen to correspond with the claimed operation.
With respect to claim 13, as detailed above, the system of Ehab includes a plurality of fluid pathways. Additionally, the system of Ehab has the capability of providing a fluid pathway to a pneumatic tire and a spare tire (claimed system does not require the presence of said tires).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehab and Braswell as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Nemeth (US 2008/0072595) and Cripe (US 4,316,640).
While Ehab, as modified by Braswell, is silent with respect to the presence of a shutoff valve, a pressure regulator, and a dryer, such an arrangement is consistent with process lines including air compressors, as shown for example by Nemeth (Paragraph 25) and Cripe. In particular, (a) Nemeth teaches a line including compressed air contained in a tank and a pressure regulator and dryer positioned downstream of said tank and (b) Cripe recognizes the known use of a plurality of shutoff valves, including at positions upstream of pressure regulators and dryers (Figure 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of components and arrangements commonly used in air feed lines, there being no conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed inflation system.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehab and Braswell as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Nemeth (US 2008/0072595) and/or Schaefer (US 3,685,656).
While Ehab, as modified by Braswell, is silent with respect to the presence of a dryer positioned downstream from a tank, such an arrangement is consistent with process lines including air compressors, as shown for example by Nemeth (Paragraph 25) and/or Schaefer (Column 1, Lines 58+). In particular, Nemeth and Schaefer teach a line including compressed air contained in a tank and a dryer positioned downstream of said tank. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of components commonly used in air feed lines (would be consistent with general desire to eliminate moisture in the air feed line).
Claim(s) 22 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehab and Braswell as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Lee (US 6,394,758).
As detailed above, Ehab, as modified by Braswell, teaches a system comprising an air compressor and a tank. In such an instance, though, the references fail to teach the presence of a pressure sensor associated with said tank and a temperature sensor associated with said compressor. It is extremely well known and conventional, though, to include pressure and temperature sensors within process lines, including those involving air compressors, in order to maintain efficient processing. Lee provides one example of a process line in which a temperature sensor is associated with a compressor and a pressure sensor is associated with a tank (Column 1, Lines 58+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include common sensors in the process line of Ehab for the benefits detailed above.
With respect to claim 26, as detailed above, Braswell describes a sensor designed to energize a solenoid valve and open a liquid drain- such a sensor would be associated with the amount of water in the tank of Ehab (as modified by Braswell).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 November 14, 2025