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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IT102022000005543, filed on 03/21/2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under National Stage Application No. PCT/IB2023/052641, filed on 03/17/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
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 6 and 8-11 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.
Claim 6 recites “said discharge manifold” in line 4. This limitation lacks antecedent basis. It appears the applicant is referring to the “delivery manifold” recited in claim 2. For examination purposes, “said discharge manifold” has been construed as “said delivery manifold”.
Claims 8-11 are rejected for reciting the limitations of claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7, and 12 are allowed.
Claims 6 and 8-11 rejected under 35 USC § 112 second paragraph, but would be allowable if all rejections in view of 35 USC § 112 second paragraph are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1 and its depending claim(s) 2-12, the closest prior art reference Blandina (US 9849724 B2) teaches (Fig. 1-6 and 8B): An anti-aquaplaning system for a motor vehicle (10)(Title), comprising: - a storage unit (tank 12) for operating liquids (col. 3, lines 17-23), - a supply unit (pump 24), and - a dispensing unit (injectors 26)(Fig. 1-2), wherein:- said dispensing unit comprises a first injector (26) and a second injector (26) configured for injecting liquid towards the ground at a position in front of, respectively, a right tread and a left tread of a right wheel (28) and a left wheel (28) of an axle of the motor vehicle (10)(Fig. 1-2; para. 4, lines 55-58 and col. 5, lines 45-52), and the dispensing unit (26) comprises at least one flow control element (CPU and valves B) configured to enable a flow of the operating liquid mixture in the fluid communication to said first injector and second injector (26) in the event of an intervention of the anti-aquaplaning system comprising injection of liquid by means of said first injector and second injector (26), and for disabling a flow of the operating liquid mixture in the fluid communication to said first injector and second injector (26)(Figs. 5-6 and 8B; col. 5, lines 1-24).
However, Blandina fails to teach at least one fluid accumulator configured for storing liquid under pressure and in fluid communication with said first injector and second injector,- said supply unit is configured for drawing an operating liquid mixture from said storage unit and delivering said operating liquid mixture to said at least one fluid accumulator, wherein at least one flow control element disables a flow of the operating liquid mixture to the first injector and the second injector for charging the at least one fluid accumulator
While another reference Richards teaches an alternate vehicle fluid control system, wherein (Fig. 1-2): at least one fluid accumulator (20) is configured for storing liquid under pressure and in fluid communication with transmission clutches (para. 0014 and 0016), Richards fails to teach that said supply unit is configured for drawing an operating liquid mixture from said storage unit and delivering said operating liquid mixture to said at least one fluid accumulator, and a flow control element for disabling a flow of the operating liquid mixture to a first injector and a second injector for charging the at least one fluid accumulator.
The examiner finds no obvious reason to place Richards’ transmission fluid accumulator between Blandina’s storage tank (12) and the two fluid injectors (26)(See Fig. 1 of Blandina provided below), since Richard’s fluid accumulator (20) serves as a fluid reservoir, a component which is already present in Blandina’s invention (tank 12). Modifying Blandina’s anti-aquaplaning system to have Richard’s accumulator in addition to the storage tank, and configure Blandina’s flow control element to disable a flow of the operating liquid mixture to the first and second injectors for charging the fluid accumulator would require improper hindsight reasoning and modifications to a modifying reference.
PNG
media_image1.png
275
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of an anti-aquaplaning system for a motor vehicle: US-2984508-A, US-3336064-A, US-5100175-A, US-20020149188-A1, US-20050248146-A1, US-20060060441-A1, US-7370888-B2, US-20140183879-A1, US-20160089933-A1, US-10195898-B2, US-20240367654-A1, US-12643344-B2, CN 109177655 A , DE 10111248 A1, WO 2011102775 A1, WO 2008111039 A1, DE 102006048507 A1, KR 20070075129 A, KR 200416220 Y1, KR 20000014218 A, DE 4115367 C2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG XI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. 9:00am to 6:00pm EST.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/CHENG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights