DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings were received on 3/26/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zschocke et al (DE 102013108380) in view of Thiebault (FR 3062347).
As per claim 1, Zschocke et al discloses a vehicle duct (18) for cooling rear brakes comprising:
a body (18) defining a channel (18) passing through the body;
an inlet (24) is at one end of the duct;
an outlet (Fig. 2) is at another end of the duct, the outlet is generally positioned laterally with respect to the vehicle axis (18, Fig. 1, 2) and the outlet is angled upward for directing an air flow at a brake rotor (18; [0014]); and
wherein the body includes an upper surface (18) and an opposite lower surface (18), the upper surface including a plurality of supports (28) that extend from the upper surface of body to secure the duct with a knuckle (20; [0012]); and
wherein an angle at which the outlet is angled upward (18, Fig. 2). Zschocke et al does not disclose the orientation or upward bending angle of the air duct, frusto-conically-shaped supports or a door positioned immediately adjacent the inlet for prohibiting air flow into the inlet until a desired windspeed force is reached.
Although it is possible that the inlet extends axially in parallel with respect to an axis of the vehicle (24; [0012]), Zschocke et al does not explicitly disclose the orientation of the cooling ducts. 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 cooling assembly of Zschocke et al by aligning the trailing duct inlet (24) with the main vehicle axis in order to maximize the air supply for better cooling.
Although it is possible that an angle at which the outlet is angled upward ranges between 35 degrees to 45 degrees (18, Fig. 2), Zschocke et al does not explicitly disclose this. 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 air guiding duct of Zschocke et al by angling the outlet upwards within a range of 35 degrees to 45 degrees in order to permit the inlet to be low enough to freely draw air. Selecting an angle from within the claimed range would have been a matter of routine optimization because an overly sharp angle would disrupt airflow, while an overly shallow angle would likely impede the air intake.
Although it is possible that the supports are frusto-conically-shaped (28, Fig. 2), Zschocke et al does not explicitly disclose this. 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 supports of Zschocke by making them frusto-conically-shaped in order to improve aerodynamic properties and maximize the respective connecting areas on the arm (20) and duct (18).
Thiebault discloses a device for regulating an airflow comprising a door (23) positioned immediately adjacent the inlet for prohibiting air flow into the inlet (19) until a desired windspeed force is reached (Translation: [0032] | Original: Page 6, lines 23-28). 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 trailing cooling duct (18) of Zschocke et al by providing a flow-control gate as taught by Thiebault in order to regulate brake cooling for improved vehicle aerodynamics.
PNG
media_image1.png
466
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 4, Zschocke et al and Thiebault disclose the vehicle duct of claim 1. Thiebault further discloses wherein the door opens automatically when the desired windspeed force contacts the door (23; Translation: [0032] | Original: Page 6, lines 23-28).
As per claim 5, Zschocke et al and Thiebault disclose the vehicle duct of claim 1. Thiebault discloses further comprising a biasing spring (Translation: [0034] | Original: Page 7, lines 1-6) enabling opening of the door at a desired air speed.
As per claim 8, Zschocke et al discloses a vehicle (Title) with a rear brake cooling device (12; Abstract, [0004]) comprising:
a rear knuckle (20; [0012]) including a brake rotor (10);
a body (18) defining a channel (18) passing through the body;
an inlet (24) at one end of the duct;
an outlet (Fig. 2) at another end of the channel, the outlet generally positioned laterally with respect to the vehicle axis (18, Fig. 1, 2) and the outlet angled upward for directing an air flow at the brake rotor (18; [0014]); and
wherein the body includes an upper surface (18) and an opposite lower surface (18), the upper surface including a plurality of supports (28) that extend from the upper surface of body to secure the duct with the rear knuckle; and
wherein an angle at which the outlet is angled upward (18, Fig. 2). Zschocke et al does not disclose the orientation or upward bending angle of the air duct, frusto-conically-shaped supports or a door positioned immediately adjacent the inlet for prohibiting air flow into the inlet until a desired windspeed force is reached.
Although it is possible that the inlet extends axially in parallel with respect to an axis of the vehicle (24; [0012]), Zschocke et al does not explicitly disclose the orientation of the cooling ducts. 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 cooling assembly of Zschocke et al by aligning the trailing duct inlet (24) with the main vehicle axis in order to maximize the air supply for better cooling.
Although it is possible that an angle at which the outlet is angled upward ranges between 35 degrees to 45 degrees (18, Fig. 2), Zschocke et al does not explicitly disclose this. 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 air guiding duct of Zschocke et al by angling the outlet upwards within a range of 35 degrees to 45 degrees in order to permit the inlet to be low enough to freely draw air. Selecting an angle from within the claimed range would have been a matter of routine optimization because an overly sharp angle would disrupt airflow, while an overly shallow angle would likely impede the air intake.
Although it is possible that the supports are frusto-conically-shaped (28, Fig. 2), Zschocke et al does not explicitly disclose this. 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 supports of Zschocke by making them frusto-conically-shaped in order to improve aerodynamic properties and maximize the respective connecting areas on the arm (20) and duct (18).
Thiebault discloses a device for regulating an airflow comprising a door (23) positioned immediately adjacent the inlet for prohibiting air flow into the inlet (19) until a desired windspeed force is reached (Translation: [0032] | Original: Page 6, lines 23-28). 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 trailing cooling duct (18) of Zschocke et al by providing a flow-control gate as taught by Thiebault in order to regulate brake cooling for improved vehicle aerodynamics.
As per claim 11, Zschocke et al and Thiebault disclose the vehicle with a rear brake cooling device of claim 8. Thiebault further discloses wherein the door opens automatically when the desired windspeed force contacts the door (23; Translation: [0032] | Original: Page 6, lines 23-28).
As per claim 12, Zschocke et al and Thiebault disclose the vehicle with a rear brake cooling device of claim 8. Thiebault discloses further comprising a biasing spring (Translation: [0034] | Original: Page 7, lines 1-6) enabling opening of the door at a desired air speed.
6. Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zschocke et al (DE 102013108380) in view of Thiebault (FR 3062347) and further in view of Shi et al (US 2017/0299006).
As per claim 6, Zschocke et al and Thiebault disclose the vehicle duct of claim 4, but do not disclose wherein the air speed is at least 50 mph.
Shi et al discloses an active airflow deflector for brake cooling wherein the air speed is at least 50 mph ([0046]). 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 gated duct of Zschocke et al and Thiebault by using gate springs strong enough to hold the gates closed at vehicle speeds below 50mph as taught by Shi et al in order to ensure adequate cooling under the more-demanding conditions of highway travel. Such a modification could be made with changes to spring size and/or shape. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A-B).
As per claim 7, Zschocke et al, Thiebault and Shi et al disclose the vehicle duct of claim 6. Thiebault further discloses wherein the spring-biased duct gate remains closed below a minimum speed (Translation: [0033] | Original: Page 6, lines 30-35). Shi et al discloses wherein the door remains closed when the air speed is below 50 mph ([0046]).
As per claim 13, Zschocke et al and Thiebault disclose the vehicle with a rear brake cooling device of claim 11, but do not disclose wherein the air speed is at least 50 mph.
Shi et al discloses an active airflow deflector for brake cooling wherein the air speed is at least 50 mph ([0046]). 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 gated duct of Zschocke et al and Thiebault by using gate springs strong enough to hold the gates closed at vehicle speeds below 50mph as taught by Shi et al in order to ensure adequate cooling under the more-demanding conditions of highway travel. Such a modification could be made with changes to spring size and/or shape. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A-B).
As per claim 14, Zschocke et al, Thiebault and Shi et al disclose the vehicle with a rear brake cooling device of claim 13. Thiebault further discloses wherein the spring-biased duct gate remains closed below a minimum speed (Translation: [0033] | Original: Page 6, lines 30-35). Shi et al discloses wherein the door remains closed when the air speed is below 50 mph ([0046]).
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 8/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 8 under Zschocke et al and Salinity have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zschocke et al and Thiebault.
Regarding the rejection under Zschocke et al, the Examiner now interprets arm (20) as corresponding to the claimed knuckle instead of wheel carrier (4). Although the applicant is permitted to act as his own lexicographer (See MPEP 2173.05(a)), the Examiner notes that the inventive knuckle (14) appears to be a control arm, rather than a steering knuckle.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claims 1 and 8 under Zschocke et al, the applicant argues that:
“Secondly, the alleged "supports" of Zschocke are not provided on an upper surface of the body of the duct, but rather on a side surface” (Page 7, ¶2).
The Examiner has taken the interpretation that the claimed upper surface corresponds to combination of the top surface and one side surface of Zschocke et al as shown in annotated Figure 2 above. The claimed lower surface corresponds to the bottom surface and the other side surface of Zschocke et al.
The applicant argues that:
“Lastly, there is no teaching or suggestion in Zschocke of an angle at which the outlet can extend in a direction toward the brake” (Page 7, ¶3).
Zschocke et al shows the air guiding duct extending upward at an unknown angle. It would be obvious to selecting an angle from within the claimed ranged in order to provide smooth airflow as a result of routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Spring-loaded vehicle air duct gates
Lee Jong Du et al (KR 2011-0032018).
Mies (DE 102019211938).
Temple (US 2018/0354355).
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M BOWES whose telephone number is (571)270-0460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
STEPHEN M. BOWES IV
Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/STEPHEN M BOWES/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights