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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed May 2, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment received June 10, 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) and 112(d) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 10, 2025. Claims 16-28, 30 and 31 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claims 16-28, 30 and 31 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. Newly amended claim 16 includes the limitation requiring a pressure increasing unit “that is separate from the towing vehicle”; however, this feature could not be found in the original disclosure.
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.
Claims 16-25, 27, 28, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0194147 (Benevelli et al.) in view of US 2019/0023091 (Spindler et al.).
Regarding claim 16, Benevelli discloses a tire inflation system for a commercial vehicle (see Figure 1, paragraph 0002), the tire inflation system comprising
A control unit (200), a flow inlet (201), a pressure sensor (206-208), a switchable that is electrically or magnetically switchable valve (203), and a flow outlet (202a-d) (see Figure 1, paragraphs 0048 and 0057-0058);
Wherein the flow inlet (201) is configured to be connected to a compressed air system (101) of an air spring (see Figure 1, paragraph 0048);
Wherein the flow outlet (202a-d) is configured to be connected to a pressure chamber of a tire (see paragraph 0047);
Wherein the control unit (200) is connected to the pressure sensor (206-208) and the switchable valve (203) (see Figure 1, paragraph 0058);
Wherein the pressure sensor (206-208) is configured to detect a pressure at the flow outlet or at the flow inlet (see Figure 1, paragraph 0058);
Wherein the control unit is configured such that the control unit opens and/or switches the switchable valve as a function of the detected pressure when the detected pressure at the flow outlet falls below a threshold value (see paragraphs 0059-0067); and
Wherein the tire inflation system has a pressure increasing unit that includes a pressure booster (air compressor) (see paragraph 0048).
Benevelli does not state that the pressure booster (air compressor) has a double-acting piston; however, Spindler teaches that providing air compressor with double-acting pistons is a space-saving option when using compressors in tires (see paragraph 0022). Such a teaching would have motivated one having ordinary skill in the art to use a compressor with a double-acting piston as the compressor of Benevelli.
Benevelli also does not specifically state that the system is for a commercial vehicle trailer towable via a towing vehicle, wherein the tire inflation system has a pressure increasing unit that is separate from the towing vehicle; however, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Benevelli discloses all the claimed structural features, thus meeting the claim. Further, Benevelli teaches that the tire inflation system may be installed on trucks (see paragraph 0002), which are known to include trailers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to use the tire inflation system on any part of a truck that includes tires, including a trailer. Upon providing the tire inflation system on a trailer, the pressure increasing system would be separate from the towing vehicle.
Regarding claim 17, Benevelli also discloses that the control unit comprises an electronic control (ECU) and/or monitoring unit (temperature sensor) (see paragraphs 0058-0059).
Regarding claim 18, Benevelli also discloses that the pressure increasing unit (compressor) includes an energy connection (ECU), the energy required to increase the pressure reaching or being able to reach the pressure increasing unit through the energy connection, and wherein the energy connection of the pressure increasing unit is connected to the flow inlet (201) (see paragraphs 0048, 0069).
Regarding claims 19-21, while Benevelli does not state the pressure increasing ratio of the pressure increasing unit is in the recited ranges, one having ordinary skill in the art would not have any reason to avoid the pressure increase ratios recited in the claims. Further, a paragraphs 0065-0067 Benevelli discusses maximum pressure tolerance of the target tire pressure and equalizing the first and second tire pressures. In order to equalize the tire pressure, a ratio of the inlet pressure and outlet pressure would optimally be equal, or close to 1.0, which lies just outside the lower endpoint of 1.05. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide a pressure increase ratio as claimed, since the lower endpoint of the claimed range of the ratio and the prior art value are so close. One skilled in the art would expect the tire to have the same properties or be so close to each other to be insignificantly different when the ratio is either 1.0 or 1.05.
Regarding claim 22, Benevelli also discloses that the tire inflation system has a pressure input sensor configured to detect a pressure at the flow inlet (see paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 23, Benevelli also discloses a 2/2-way valve (see paragraphs 0018-0019, 0062).
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Benevelli also discloses that two or more tires may be inflated consecutively or simultaneously (see paragraphs 0066-0077), which would suggest to one having ordinary skill in the art that the switchable valve comprises a 3/2-way valve or a 4/2-way valve.
Regarding claim 27, Benevelli also discloses that the tire inflation system further comprises a connecting line that connects the flow inlet (201) to the flow outlet (202a-d) via the switchable valve (see paragraphs 0016, 0051).
Regarding claim 28, Benevelli also discloses a back pressure valve and/or overflow valve without backflow arranged between the flow inlet and switchable valve (see paragraph 0055-0057 where pressure limiting valves are discussed).
Regarding claim 30, while Benevelli does not disclose an embodiment where the commercial vehicle trailer comprises a semitrailer, this is a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 31, Benevelli also discloses a method of operating a tire inflation system of a commercial vehicle trailer according to claim 16, comprising:
Determining the pressure at a flow outlet of the tire inflation system (see paragraph 0067);
Comparing the determined pressure with a target pressure by a control unit; and
Actuating the pressure increasing unit of the tire inflation system when the determining pressure is below the target pressure (see paragraph 0069).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0194147 (Benevelli et al.) in view of US 2019/0023091 (Spindler et al.) further in view of US 2021/0276374 (Puppi et al.).
Benevelli in view of Spindler discloses a tire as discussed above. While Benevelli does not state that the pressure input sensor is arranged on a circuit board of the control unit, such a configuration would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since it is stated at paragraph 0028 that the electronic unit comprises at least one pressure sensor in communication with the control unit. As taught by Puppi, it is known in the art to arrange sensors on circuit boards of control units in order to monitor tire pressure (see paragraph 0024).
Claims 16-18, 22, 28, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0144171 (Tarasinski et al.) in view of US 2019/0023091 (Spindler et al.).
Regarding claim 16, Tarasinski discloses a tire inflation system for a commercial vehicle (see Figure 1, paragraph 0002), the tire inflation system comprising
A control unit (50), a flow inlet (62), a pressure sensor (46), a switchable that is electrically or magnetically switchable valve (40), and a flow outlet (14) (see Figure 1, paragraphs 0047-0054);
Wherein the flow inlet (62) is configured to be connected to a compressed air system (34) of an air spring (see Figure 1, paragraph 0054);
Wherein the flow outlet (14) is configured to be connected to a pressure chamber of a tire (see paragraph 0047 where valve 14 to four tires is discussed);
Wherein the control unit (50) is connected to the pressure sensor (46) and the switchable valve (40) (see Figure 1, paragraphs 0049-0052);
Wherein the pressure sensor (46) is configured to detect a pressure at the flow outlet or at the flow inlet (see Figure 1, paragraph 0049);
Wherein the control unit is configured such that the control unit opens and/or switches the switchable valve as a function of the detected pressure when the detected pressure at the flow outlet falls below a threshold value (see paragraphs 0049-0052); and
Wherein the tire inflation system has a pressure increasing unit that includes a pressure booster (compressor) (see paragraphs 0048-0049).
Tarasinski does not state that the pressure booster (compressor) has double pistons; however, does not state that the pressure booster (air compressor) has a double-acting piston; however, Spindler teaches that providing air compressor with double-acting pistons is a space-saving option when using compressors in tires (see paragraph 0022). Such a teaching would have motivated one having ordinary skill in the art to use a compressor with a double-acting piston as the compressor of Tarasinski.
Tarasinski also discloses that the system is for a commercial vehicle trailer (see paragraphs 0002 and 0042), which would be towable via a towing vehicle. Further, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Tarasinski discloses all the claimed structural features, thus meeting the claim. Further, upon providing the tire inflation system on a trailer, the pressure increasing system would be separate from the towing vehicle.
Regarding claim 17, Tarasinski also discloses that the control unit (50) comprises an electronic control and/or monitoring unit (58) (see paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 18, Tarasinski also discloses that the pressure increasing unit (compressor) includes an energy connection (26), the energy required to increase the pressure reaching or being able to reach the pressure increasing unit through the energy connection, and wherein the energy connection of the pressure increasing unit is connected to the flow inlet (see paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 22, Tarasinski also discloses that the tire inflation system has a pressure input sensor configured to detect a pressure at the flow inlet (see paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 28, Tarasinski also discloses a back pressure valve (44) and/or overflow valve without backflow arranged between the flow inlet and switchable valve (see paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 30, while Tarasinski does not disclose an embodiment where the commercial vehicle trailer comprises a semitrailer, this is a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 31, Tarasinski also discloses a method of operating a tire inflation system of a commercial vehicle trailer according to claim 16, comprising:
Determining the pressure at a flow outlet of the tire inflation system;
Comparing the determined pressure with a target pressure by a control unit; and
Actuating the pressure increasing unit of the tire inflation system when the determining pressure is below the target pressure (see paragraphs 0047-0052).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are directed to the amended limitation of a pressure increasing unit that is separate from the towing vehicle. This limitation could not be found in the original specification and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been made. As discussed above in paragraphs 18 and 44, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the tire inflation system on a trailer towable via a towing vehicle, creating an embodiment where the pressure increasing unit is separate from the towing vehicle.
Conclusion
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 WENDY L BOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-7466. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:30.
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.
/WENDY L BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/BLAINE COPENHEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights