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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 2, 3 and 11-13, 15-18 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein the suction element partly or wholly is formed at the distal environment distal from the brake installation” is not understood. It is not clear what is encompassed by “partly or wholly”. It is not clear what is required by the limitation since it is not clear as to how something can be only partly distal.
Regarding claims 3, 11-13, 15-18 and 20, the limitation “assigned to” is not clear. It is not clear what is encompassed by “assigned to”. Does “assigned to” require a positional or functional or structural relationship between the recited structure? For example, claims 11 and 12 recite “the conical section assigned to the cyclone separator element”. Does this mean that the conical section surrounds the cyclone separator? Does this mean that the conical section is part of the cyclone separator? Does this mean that the conical section is mechanically or functionally connected to the cyclone separator?
Regarding claim 3, a single cyclone separator element is assigned to the collecting element. Does assigned to require a connection of the two structural elements or does it require a fluid connection of the two elements?
Regarding claim 13, the cylindrical section is assigned to an intermediate volume. Does this limitation require the intermediate volume to be surrounded by or connected to the cylindrical section?
Regarding claim 15, each brake installation is assigned to a vehicle wheel. Does this mean that each wheel comprises a brake installation or each brake installation is connected to one wheel?
Regarding claim 16, a single brake air through flow device and a single vehicle brake air system is assigned to each of the brake installations separately. Does this mean that each brake installation comprises a device and air system or is each brake installation is separately fluidly attached to a single device and system?
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “a common assembly of a single or a number of brake air through flow devices (2) is assigned to a partial number of the brake installations” is not clear. First, it is not understood what is encompassed by “assigned to”. It is also not clear what a partial number of brake installations” encompasses. It is also not understood what is encompassed by “ a common assembly of a single or number”. Is the claim meant to recite that a common brake air through flow device is connected to a plurality of brake devices? It is also not clear if the claim only requires a single brake air through flow device on a single brake installation on a wheel.
Regarding claim 18, a common assembly of a single or a number of brake air through flow devices is assigned to all of the brake installations of the vehicle. It is unclear what is encompassed by “assigned to”. Does the limitation require a structural relationship? Claim 18 also requires wherein each brake installation is assigned to a vehicle wheel. Does this mean that each wheel comprises a brake installation or each brake installation is connected to one wheel?
Claim 20 requires wherein each brake installation is assigned to a vehicle wheel. Does this mean that each wheel comprises a brake installation or each brake installation is connected to one wheel?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-8, 10-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Arnault et al. WO 2020183092.
For examining purposes, the English equivalent of Arnault et al., US-20220252117, has been referred to below.
Regarding claim 1, Arnault et al. discloses a brake air system (fig 7) for a brake installation (7), said brake air system comprising: at least one air duct (13) fluidly connected to a brake installation (fig 7) having a brake air receiving element (100/13a/13b), wherein the brake air receiving element receives brake air in the vicinity of the brake installation (fig 7 and [0100], coming from friction zones 72a/b) and fluidly transports the brake air to an environment distal from the brake installation (fig 7 at least at 2), at least one brake air through flow device (at least 2) having a separator cyclone element (5), a collecting element (at least 4), and a filter element (20), said elements being arranged along a through flow downward sequence of a device housing (fig 1-2, 2a/b/c), wherein the brake air through flow device (2) separates and collects dust particles from the brake air and filters the brake air thereafter (Abstract), at least one suction element (a least 33/34) that generates a suction pressure to the brake air received from the brake air through flow device and generates a propulsive brake air flow through the brake air through flow device ([0146], aspiration mode), wherein the suction element (33/34) extends the suction pressure to the brake air receiving element (2) in the vicinity of the brake installation (fig 7), wherein the brake air through flow device (2) and the suction element (33/34) are arranged at the distal environment distal from the brake installation (fig 7 and 9 and [0146], 33/34 mounted downstream, and which may or may not be incorporated into the casing 2).
Regarding claim 2, Arnault et al. discloses wherein the suction element (33/34) partly or wholly is formed at the distal environment distal from the brake installation (figs 7 and 9), the suction element comprising one or more of the suction mechanisms selected from the group consisting of: - an air intake manifold of the vehicle, - a compressor of the vehicle, - a vehicle fan, - a pressure sink providing a lower pressure as compared to the pressure in the vicinity of the brake installation, - a venturi or chimney element providing a venturi or chimney effect providing a lower pressure as compared to the pressure in the vicinity of the brake installation (fig 7 and 9 and [0146], 33/34 mounted downstream, and which may or may not be incorporated into the casing 2).
Regarding claim 3, Arnault et al. discloses wherein the brake air through flow device has a single cyclone separator element (5) assigned to the collecting element (4), wherein the collecting element is a single collecting element (a least fig 1).
Regarding claim 4, Arnault et al. discloses wherein the device housing (2), at least in part, is formed by the brake air through flow device (fig 1, 2, and 7), wherein the housing in a sequential arrangement from bottom to top is formed by: the cyclone separator element (5), and the filter element (20, figs 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, Arnault et al. discloses the device housing (2) further includes: the collecting element (4) below the cyclone separator element (5), and a lid (2c) above the filter element (fig 2).
Regarding claim 6, Arnault et al. discloses the lid (2c) and the collecting element (4) are detachable from the housing and the lid and the collecting element are adapted for re-assembly (at least fig 4-6 , screws V and V’ and fig 2 threading and fasteners at or near 2c, 2b, and 4).
Regarding claim 7, Arnault et al. discloses the brake air through flow device (at least fig 6) has an intermediate volume (RP), which is arranged axially between the cyclone separator element (5) and the filter element (20).
Regarding claim 8, Arnault et al. discloses wherein said intermediate volume (RP) forms an upper open zone (Z2/Z50) below the filter element, and wherein the collecting element (4) forms a lower drop zone (trapping zone Z4) below the cyclone separator element (fig 1).
Regarding claim 10, Arnault et al. discloses wherein the device housing (2) of the brake air through flow device further comprises: an inlet interface (E) in fluid connection to the cyclone separator element an outlet interface (8) in fluid connection from the filter element (20), wherein the intermediate volume (RP/Z2/Z50) is in fluid connection to the outlet interface (8), and a mounting assembly for attachment of the housing to a vehicle ([0101], by virtue of fixing means 92 (possibly resorting to screws/bolts), to a strut 91 of a suspension damper 90.
Regarding claim 11, Arnault et al. discloses wherein the mounting assembly (92, fig 7) is arranged on a conical section of the device housing (at least “bowl” 2a has been interpreted as conical), the conical section assigned to the cyclone separator element (fig 1).
Regarding claim 12, Arnault et al. discloses wherein the inlet interface (E) is arranged on a conical section of the device housing (at least “bowl” 2a has been interpreted as conical), the conical section assigned to the cyclone separator element (fig 1).
Regarding claim 13, Arnault et al. discloses wherein the outlet interface (8) is arranged in a cylindrical section of the device housing (at least 2b/ 2c, figs 1, 2, and 4-6), the cylindrical section assigned to an intermediate volume between the cyclone separator element and the filter element (fig 1).
Regarding claim 15, Arnault et al. discloses a vehicle brake system (1) with a number of brake installations (fig 7), each brake installation being assigned to a vehicle wheel at a vehicle axle (fig 7), the vehicle brake system further comprising the brake air system (2) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Arnault et al. discloses wherein a single brake air through flow device and a single vehicle brake air system is assigned to each of the brake installations separately (fig 7, shown in singular form at a vehicle wheel).
Regarding claim 17, Arnault et al. discloses wherein a common assembly of a single or a number of brake air through flow devices (2) is assigned to a partial number of the brake installations (7) of the vehicle, each brake installation being assigned to a vehicle wheel at a vehicle axle (fig 7, shown in singular form at a vehicle wheel).
Regarding claim 18, Arnault et al. discloses wherein a common assembly of a single or a number of brake air through flow devices is assigned to all of the brake installations of the vehicle, each brake installation being assigned to a vehicle wheel at a vehicle axle. It has been interpreted that fig 7 shows in singular form, the brake air through flow device at a vehicle wheel wherein each wheel of the vehicle is capable of being equipped.
Regarding claim 19, Arnault et al. discloses wherein the device housing (2a/b/c) of the brake air through flow device is attached to a chassis of the vehicle at the distal environment (at least fig 7 at 92 through 90) distal from the brake installation (fig 7).
Regarding claim 20, Arnault et al. discloses generating a suction pressure by at least one suction element (33/34) to brake air receivable from a brake air through flow device (2), thereby generating a propulsive brake air flow through the brake air through flow device and further extending the suction pressure to a brake air receiving element in a vicinity of the brake installation (fig 7), receiving the brake air at a brake air receiving element (100) in the vicinity of the brake installation and fluidly transporting the brake air to an environment distal from the brake installation via an air duct (13) fluidly connected to the brake installation (fig 7), purifying the brake air in at least one brake air through flow device (at least 2 including, 4/5/20), wherein the brake air through flow device includes a cyclone separator element (5), a collecting element (4), and a filter element (20), said elements being arranged along a through flow downward sequence in a device housing (figs 1-2), wherein the brake air through flow device separates and collects dust particles from the brake air flow and filters the brake air flow thereafter (at least [0109] wherein a main separation of particles and dust from an incoming flow F is provided by separation means 5 of the cyclone type, such separation means 5 delimiting within the casing 2 an upstream zone Z1 in communication with the inlet E of the device 1, and a downstream zone Z2 in which a purified flow intended for the outlet 8 can circulate..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnault et al. WO 2020183092. in view of Tamura (US-20210187519).
Regarding claim 14, lacks wherein the manufacturing process is a 3D printing process. Taumra teaches a cyclone collector wherein he cyclone body 21 may have a structure in which the container body 31 and the lid 32 are formed completely integrally and which has been obtained by using, for example, a 3D printer (Tamura, [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the parts of Arnault et al. device using one of many cost saving methods such as 3D printing as taught by Tamura.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 9, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the intermediate volume provides a channel fluidly connected to the suction element such that the channel is arranged in a cross-flow configuration across a through pipe, wherein said through pipe is arranged in fluid connection between the cyclone separator element and the filter element, wherein the channel and the through pipe are pneumatically separated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K HSIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6259. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES K HSIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights