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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 65 and 67.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
The drawings are objected to because reference character “64” does not indicate the “second spring” in Figures 4 and 5.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "96" and "96b" have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 6.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
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: S101, S102, S105, S108, and S109.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal terms (see section 7 below). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “comprises”, “comprising”, “means”, and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0035], reference characters “14”, “12”, and “16” do not correspond to the elements referred to therein.
Reference characters “a”, “b”, “c”, and “d” should be enclosed in parentheses () to distinguish them from normal text.
It is unclear whether or not the following: “P1”, “V”, “S”, and “T1” as used in paragraph [0042]+ in the specification are reference characters, given the fact that they do not appear in the drawings.
In paragraph [0061], it appears that the phrase “shut down d” should be replaced with the phrase - - shut down- -, for grammatical clarity.
Paragraphs [0067] through [0077] are merely copies of the claims with the term “claim” replaced with the term “clause”. These paragraphs should either be removed from the specification, or rewritten in narrative form.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-11 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 1 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to be”. This phrase is generally narrative (see section 11 below), and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “can be” renders it unclear whether or not compressed air is actually delivered from the air source to the tire.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are indefinite due to the fact that the term “via” is generally narrative (see section 11 below) and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claims 4-5 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to isolate”. This phrase is generally narrative (see section 11 below), and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 7 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrases “configured to provide” and “configured to control”. These phrases are generally narrative (see section 11 below), and fail to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 10 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to”. This phrase is generally narrative (see section 11 below), and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 11 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to determine”. This phrase is generally narrative (see section 11 below), and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoeldrich et al (10,220,657).
Per claim 1, Figure 1 of Hoeldrich et al shows a tire inflation device at least partially integrated into a wheel hub bearing unit including a stationary outer ring 11 and a rotatable inner ring 12. The inflation device includes an engagement port 25 radially extending through an axial end of the outer ring 11 of the wheel hub bearing unit. An adapter 26 engaged to the engagement port 25 form a first air passage 22 in fluid communication with an air source 4. A second air passage 21 disposed in the inner ring 12 is in fluid communication with a tire. Figure 3 shows a sealing assembly 31 having a first and second sealing components 31b. The first sealing component includes a first end radially abutting against the axial end of the outer ring 11, and the second sealing component includes a second end radially abutting the inner ring 12. The second sealing component is rotatably engaged to the first sealing component to form an annular air passage in fluid communication with the first air passage 22.
Per claim 4, the hub bearing unit includes a rolling unit 13 between the inner 12 and outer 11 rings in a space, with annular air passage formed between two sealing assemblies, such that one 31 isolates the annular air passage from the space and the other isolates the annular air passage from the environment (see Figure 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 7-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeldrich et al as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Bryan et al (4,619,303).
Per claim 7, Hoeldrich et al shows the inflation system on a vehicle having a plurality of wheels with tires mounted thereon (2a-b, 3a-b). The vehicle inherently includes a suspension system. The air source 4 provides compressed air to inflate each tire, with the tire inflation device at least partially integrated into each wheel hub unit. A control device 230 controls inflation and deflation of each tire.
Per claim 8, Figure 4 of Hoeldrich et al shows the air source 4 includes a compressor/pump 4a and a storage tank 4b. A first valve and main line are in fluid communication with the pump 4a. A second valve and second line fluidly communicates the storage tank 4b to the main line, and multiple third valves and third branches fluidly communicate a corresponding tire to the main line.
Regarding claim 7, Hoeldrich et al does not disclose the suspension of the vehicle including air springs, with those air springs connected to the air source for inflation and deflation. Bryan et al teaches that some vehicles are equipped with an air compressor and compressed air system for air brakes and air suspensions in addition to a tire inflation system (column 7, lines 53-60). Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, that the vehicle of Hoeldrich et al may include an air suspension (i.e. air springs) connected to the same air source as the tire inflation system, as is well known in the art, dependent upon the desired load handling and ride characteristics.
Regarding claim 8, Hoeldrich et al does not disclose the inflation system including an exhaust device with a silencer. However, Bryan et al teaches the use of an exhaust device (i.e. a valve) 58 using a silencer 104. A branch of the inflation system fluidly communicates between the exhaust device 58 and the main line through a valve Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the inflation system of Hoeldrich et al with an exhaust device having a silencer, for the purpose of reducing noise produced by the inflation system releasing excess pressurized air.
Regarding claim 11, Hoeldrich et al as modified by Bryan et al does not disclose that the control device does not control the inflation and deflation of each tire until determining the vehicle speed; whether the vehicle is turning; and whether the doors, hood, and main body lid are closed. However, it is well known in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that a control device is capable of using any desired parameter to determine when to activate the inflation device, dependent upon safety and preventing damage to elements of the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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. The references show tire inflation systems with connections in and around wheel hub bearing units.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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 (571)272-6684. 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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights