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 .
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the secondary valve” and “the other secondary valves" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The secondary valves have not been defined until claim 3 from which claim 8 does not depend.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayford et al. (US-6357563) in view of Blundell (US-20190168541).
Regarding claim 1, Hayford et al. discloses a brake cooling system (fig 1), comprising: a pressurized air source (30) configured to supply compressed air; a flow passage (34) extending from the pressurized air source to a vicinity of a brake assembly (fig 1); the flow passage having an outlet (36) directing supplied compressed air towards the brake assembly (fig 1), at least one nozzle (36) provided in the flow passage, wherein the nozzle (36) increases the speed and reduces the temperature of compressed air that is passed from the pressurized air source and through the nozzle (at least col. 2, lines 26-41); a valve (32) configured to control the fluid communication between the pressurized air source and the nozzle (36), wherein when the valve is closed compressed air is prevented from reaching the nozzle and when the valve is open compressed air is allowed to pass to and through the nozzle ((at least col. 2, line 9, selectively activated valve 32); and at least one temperature sensor (42) configured to sense the temperature of a brake assembly (col. 2, line 60); wherein sensing by the temperature sensor that the temperature of the brake assembly is above a predefined limit causes the valve to become opened so that compressed air is passed from the pressurized air source through the nozzle and out through the outlet of the flow passage to the brake assembly in order to bring down the temperature of the brake assembly (col. 2, lines 52-63).
Hayford et al. is silent as to the nozzle being a De Laval nozzle. Hayford et al. discloses a converging nozzle 36 wherein as the compressed air leaves the conduits 34 through the discharge nozzles 36, the decompression of the air results in a reduction of air temperature. In one example, the conduits 34 have a two inch inside diameter and the discharge nozzles 36 have a 1/4 inch opening. This results in the air flow changing from a rate of 2 meters per second in the conduits 34 to a rate of 100 meters per second at the discharge nozzles 36.
Blundell teaches wherein a valve configured to accelerate gas may be, for example, a convergent-divergent nozzle, such as a de Laval nozzle. A de Laval nozzle is able to accelerate a hot, pressurized gas to a high speed in the axial (thrust) direction, by converting the heat energy of the flow into kinetic energy. Increasing the velocity of the gas improves the response time of the system and increases the momentum of the gas. High momentum gas is able to clear a larger area of road as it is able to displace a larger volume of water. Blundell teaches wherein a de laval nozzle can maximize fluid or gas flow in order to maximize the affect of the pressurized air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a De Laval nozzle as taught by Blundell in the brake cooling assembly of Hayford et al. at least in order to improve the response time of the system and increases the momentum of the gas thus maximizing the affect of the discharged air/gas (Blundell [0024]).
Regarding claim 2, Hayford et al. discloses wherein downstream of the nozzle, the flow passage (34) is split into a plurality of branches (fig 1), each branch having an outlet (36) configured to direct supplied air towards a respective brake assembly of a plurality of brake assemblies (fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, Hayford et al. discloses wherein the system comprises a plurality of temperature sensors (42, at least one per wheel/brake assembly), each temperature sensor being configured to sense the temperature of a respective brake assembly (42, at least one per wheel/brake assembly), wherein sensing by any one of the temperature sensors that the temperature of the associated brake assembly is above a predefined limit causes the main valve to become opened so that compressed air is passed from the pressurized air source through the main nozzle (36) and out through the outlet of the associated branch to the brake assembly in order to bring down the temperature of the brake assembly (fig 1 and at least co. 2, line 52-63).
Regarding claim 8, Hayford et al. discloses, wherein upon sensing by a temperature sensor that the temperature of a brake assembly is above a predefined limit, in addition to the main valve becoming opened, also the secondary valve in the branch associated with that brake assembly becomes opened, while allowing the other secondary valves to remain closed 9fig 1 at least wherein secondary branches 24 are opened along with 32).
Regarding claim 12, Hayford et al. discloses a vehicle (abstract).
Claims 3- 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayford et al. (US-6357563) in view of Blundell (US-20190168541) and in further view of Pei et al. (CN 111775903 A).
Regarding claim 3, Hayford et al. discloses wherein the valve is a main valve (32) but lacks a secondary valve in each branch. Pei et al. teaches a brake cooling system (11) wherein a main valve (132) and a safety valve (133) cool a brake assembly (2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cooling system of Hayford et al. with the safety valve or plurality of valves in each branch as taught by Pei et al. at least in order to provide a backup in case of failure.
Regarding claim 4, Hayford et al. discloses wherein the nozzle is a main nozzle (36), wherein the brake cooling system further comprises a plurality of secondary nozzles (36), each branch (34) being provided with a respective one of the plurality of secondary de Laval nozzles, the secondary de Laval nozzles further increasing the speed and reducing the temperature of the supplied compressed air (fig 1).
Regarding claim 5, Hayford et al. discloses wherein, in each branch, the secondary nozzle is arranged in series with and downstream of the secondary valve (fig 1, branches 34 and nozzle 36 in series).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 6, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the main de Laval nozzle has a larger flow-through passage than the flow-through passage of any one of the secondary de Laval nozzles, such that a higher flow rate through the main de Laval nozzle is enabled compared to the flow rate enabled through any one of the secondary de Laval nozzles.
As to claim 9, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the valve is normally closed and becomes opened upon receipt of an electric signal from an associated temperature sensor, wherein the temperature sensor comprises a switch which: is set in an open state when the sensed temperature is below the predefined limit, thereby preventing the electric signal from the temperature sensor to be provided to the valve; and is set in a closed state when the measured temperature is above the predefined limit, thereby providing the electric signal to the valve.
As to claim 10, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the de Laval nozzle has: a convergent section into which compressed air from the pressurized air source is configured to enter; a divergent section from which the compressed air exits; and a throat section located between the convergent and the divergent section; wherein the divergent section has a longer axial extension than the convergent section, wherein the convergent section has a longer axial extension than the throat section.
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