DETAILED ACTION
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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 31, 32, 33, 34. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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.
Claims 13, 15, 19 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Adamczak et al. (WO 2020094950 A1).
Re claim 13, Adamczak et al. disclose a method for controlling a braking particle suction system of a friction braking system, the braking particle suction system comprising: at least one negative pressure source (1), at least one suction mouth (82) arranged close to a friction interface or inside a friction part and connected by at least one pneumatic line (3) to the negative pressure source, a control unit (6) configured to control the negative pressure source, and a means of supplying current braking activation information (48), the method providing that the control unit (6) is configured to: a- control the negative pressure source, for a braking suction sequence, according to the current braking activation information, in order to ensure suction is applied as soon as braking is activated (T0, T1, T2), b- establish at least one cleaning suction condition, outside of any braking sequence, c- as soon as the at least one cleaning suction condition satisfies a predetermined criterion, control the negative pressure source for a cleaning sequence for the at least one pneumatic line, for a predetermined duration, the method providing that, in step b-, the determination of the cleaning suction condition is a logical/algorithmic calculation which takes into account at least one of the following variables- a current speed (VV) of the vehicle, - a time elapsed since a last cleaning sequence, - a distance traveled since the last cleaning sequence, - a number of dynamic braking actions carried out since the last cleaning sequence, - a prevalence of a maintenance mode. On page 7, paragraph 15 of the machine translation, Adamczak et al. disclose wherein the control unit 6 receives information from sensor(s) and/or other units present on board the vehicle to determine that a suction sequence must be activated, and to determine the time or times when the activation must be started as well as the moment(s) when the activation must be stopped. Adamczak et al. continues on page 8, paragraph 5 to disclose wherein the control unit uses the current vehicle speed information VV and paragraph 8 wherein the control system can decide if conditions have been met.
Re claim 15, Adamczak et al. discloses wherein, in step c-, the negative pressure source is activated to maximum power. (Translation – Page 3, 10th Par.) Adamczak et al. discloses wherein the negative pressure source can be controlled in all or nothing, or according to any rotation speed.
Re claim 19, Adamczak et al. discloses wherein the negative pressure source (1) is formed by a turbine (10) driven by an electric motor (11), the control unit (6) being configured to control the electric motor.
Re claim 20, Adamczak et al. discloses wherein the control unit is configured to control, during the cleaning sequence, a vent solenoid valve (51) arranged on the pneumatic circuit close to the suction mouth.
Re claim 21, Adamczak et al. discloses braking particle suction system of a friction braking system, the suction system comprising at least one negative pressure source (1), at least one suction mouth (83) arranged close to a friction interface or inside a friction part (7) and connected by at least one pneumatic line (3) to the negative pressure source, a control unit (6) configured to control the negative pressure source, and a means of supplying current braking activation information (48), the suction system being configured to implement the method according to claim 13.
Re claim 22, Adamczak et al. discloses at least one filter (2) for collecting the suctioned particles.
Re claim 23, Adamczak et al. discloses wherein the system comprises a centralized filter and a centralized turbine, which are connected to four or more suction mouths. (Fig. 3)
Re claim 24, Adamczak et al. discloses wherein a vent solenoid valve (51) is provided on the pneumatic circuit and close to the suction mouth.
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 Adamczak et al. (WO 2020094950 A1) in view of Metayer (US 2017/0248180 A1).
Re claim 14, Metayer does not teach wherein the cleaning sequence is triggered, outside of maintenance mode, only if the current speed of the vehicle is greater than a first speed threshold. Adamczek et al. teaches wherein a cleaning sequence is triggered outside of maintenance mode, only if the current speed of the vehicle is greater than a first speed threshold (Vs). (Abstract, [0011]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to operate a cleaning sequence only if a vehicle speed was greater than a first speed threshold to avoid ejection of hazardous particles as taught by Metayer. ([0002] – [00011])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pasquet et al., Kowalski, Jr., Radu, Adamczak et al. ‘285 teach similar braking particle suction systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
MTWFebruary 13, 2026