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 Objections
Claims 2, 4-8, and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 2
Line 16 recites the language “according to claim 1 and comprising”. The claim language should be amended such that it reads –according to claim 1, and comprising—
Regarding Claim 4
Line 9 recites the language “to channel exhaust gases outside”. For purposes of clarity, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –to channel the exhaust gases outside—
Regarding Claim 5
Lines 16-17 recite the language “according to claim 4 and comprising”. The claim language should be amended such that it reads –according to claim 4, and comprising—
Regarding Claim 6
Line 20 recites the language “each fin”. For purposes of clarity, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –each fin of the plurality of fins—
Regarding Claim 7
Lines 22-23 recite the language “according to claim 5 and comprising”. The claim language should be amended such that it reads –according to claim 5, and comprising—
Regarding Claim 8
Lines 2-3 recite the language “according to claim 7 and comprising”. The claim language should be amended such that it reads –according to claim 7, and comprising—
Regarding Claim 11
Lines 22-23 recite the language “according to claim 10 further comprising”. The claim language should be amended such that it reads –according to claim 10, further comprising—
Regarding Claim 12
Line 3 recites the language “an endothermic engine”. For purposes of clarity, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –the
Lines 3-4 recite the language “a propulsion system”. For purposes of clarity, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –the
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 3 and 11 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.
Regarding Claim 3
Lines 24-2 recite the limitation “the method comprises regulating the position of the movable flap as a function of the instantaneous travel conditions of the vehicle”. However, the disclosure only mentions “varying the position of the movable flap….as a function of the instantaneous running conditions of the vehicle”. The disclosure does not specify when (what travel/running condition) it would be desirable to move the flap from position P1 to position P2 or from position P2 to position P1. Therefore, claim 3 fails to comply with the written description requirement
Regarding Claim 11
Lines 23-2 recite the limitation “a control unit configured to adjust the position of the movable flap in relation to the conduit body as a function of the instantaneous travel conditions of the vehicle”. However, the disclosure only mentions “varying the position of the movable flap….as a function of the instantaneous running conditions of the vehicle”. The disclosure does not specify when (what travel/running condition) it would be desirable to move the flap from position P1 to position P2 or from position P2 to position P1. Therefore, claim 11 fails to comply with the written description requirement
5. 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 2-12 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.
Regarding Claim 2
Lines 18-19 recite the limitation “in particular by means of a Venturi tube”. It is unclear if the limitation following the language “in particular” is required. For examination purposes, the limitation following “in particular” is interpreted as not being required.
Regarding Claim 3
Lines 23-24 recite the limitation “the passage section of the terminal section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the instantaneous travel conditions of the vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Lines 24-2 recite the limitation “the method comprises regulating the position of the movable flap as a function of the instantaneous travel conditions of the vehicle”. However, as the disclosure only mentions “varying the position of the movable flap….as a function of the instantaneous running conditions of the vehicle”, it is unclear what is encompassed by the “function of the instantaneous running conditions of the vehicle”. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted the limitation as simply requiring the varying of the position of the movable flap based on an input.
Regarding Claim 4
Line 5 recites the limitation “the outside”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Line 6 recites the limitation “each connected to the engine”. It is unclear what claim limitation is being referred to when using the language “each”. For examination purposes, the claim limitation is interpreted as if the claim language read –each inlet of the plurality of inlets is connected to the endothermic engine—
Line 15 recites the limitation “the outer surface of said manifold”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 5
Line 17 recites the limitation “each protruding from”. It is unclear what claim limitation is being referred to when using the language “each”. For examination purposes, the claim limitation is interpreted as if the claim language read –each fin of the plurality of fins protruding from—
Regarding Claim 7
Line 23 recites the limitation “a group of fins”. However, Claim 5 previously disclosed “a plurality of fins”. It is unclear if the “group of fins” of line 23 is same limitation as recited in claim 5 or if it is a new grouping of fins.
Lines 24-1 recite the limitation “a flow of air which, in use, invests the manifold” (emphasis added). It is unclear what is meant by the term “invests”.
Regarding Claim 8
Line 3 recites the limitation “a first group of fins”. However, as claim 5 previously disclosed “a plurality of fins” and claim 7 previously disclose “a group of fins”, it is unclear if “a first group of fins” of line 3 is a new limitation.
Lines 3-4 recite the limitation “a second group of fins”. However, as claim 5 previously disclosed “a plurality of fins” and claim 7 previously disclose “a group of fins”, it is unclear if “a second group of fins” of lines 3-4 is a new limitation.
Line 5 recites the limitation “in particular perpendicular”. It is unclear if the limitation following the language “in particular” is required. For examination purposes, the limitation following “in particular” is interpreted as not being required.
Regarding Claim 10
Line 17 recites the limitation “the heat exchange section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Lines 20-21 recite the limitation “the passage section of the terminal section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 11
Lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the instantaneous travel conditions of the vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Lines 23-2 recite the limitation “a control unit configured to adjust the position of the movable flap in relation to the conduit body as a function of the instantaneous travel conditions of the vehicle”. However, as the disclosure only mentions “varying the position of the movable flap….as a function of the instantaneous running conditions of the vehicle”, it is unclear what is encompassed by the “function of the instantaneous running conditions of the vehicle”. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted the limitation as simply requiring the varying of the position of the movable flap based on an input.
Regarding Claims 6, 9, and 12
Claims 6, 9, and 12 are rejected insofar as they are dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3-4, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Niederdraenk et al., US 2017/0036510.
Regarding Claim 1
Niederdraenk discloses an additional propulsion method for a vehicle with an endothermic engine [the method of Niederdraenk is capable of use in a vehicle with an endothermic engine] (Niederdraenk, Abstract), the method comprising the steps of:
a) generating exhaust gases by means of the engine (1) (Niederdraenk, Abstract);
b) channeling the exhaust gases along an exhaust line (3) (Niederdraenk, [0034]);
c) channeling an air flow [fresh air] into a conduit (7, air inlet) which is in thermal contact with said exhaust line (3) at a heat exchanger section (4, waste-heat collecting housing) (Niederdraenk, [0006]);
d) exchanging heat, at the heat exchange section (4), between the exhaust gas and the air flow so as to heat the air flow and cool the exhaust gas (Niederdraenk, [0006]);
e) generating a propulsive thrust by means of the enthalpy jump of the hot air flow exiting the heat exchanger section (4) [it is inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the exit of hot air flow from the heat exchanger section (4) to the environment via (14) would generate a propulsive thrust as claimed] (Niederdraenk, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3
Niederdraenk discloses the method according to claim 1. Niederdraenk further discloses that the conduit (7) has a terminal section (14) downstream of the heat exchanger section (4); the terminal section (14) comprises a movable flap (16), which selectively varies the passage section of the terminal section (14) (Niederdraenk, [0022] [0029] and [0040]); and the method comprises regulating the position of the movable flap (16) as a function of the instantaneous travel conditions of the vehicle [interpreted as simply requiring the varying of the position of the movable flap based on an input – see rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b)] (Niederdraenk, [0022] [0029] and [0040]).
Regarding Claim 4
Niederdraenk discloses a propulsion system for a vehicle with an endothermic engine [the method of Niederdraenk is capable of use in a vehicle with an endothermic engine]; wherein the propulsion system comprises a manifold (2) having an inner cavity which communicates with the outside through a plurality of inlets (P, annotated portion of Figure 1 of Niederdraenk below), each connected to the engine (1) and receive exhaust gases coming out of the engine (1), and an outlet (connected to turbocharger (5)) configured to be connected to an exhaust line (3) to channel exhaust gases outside the vehicle (Niederdraenk, [0034], Figure 1 and annotated portion of Figure 1 below); wherein the manifold (2) is delimited by a body having an external surface (exterior of (2)) (Niederdraenk, Figure 1); and wherein the propulsion system comprises a conduit (7, 4) at least partially covering said manifold (2), said conduit (7, 4) surrounding, at least partially without contact, said manifold (2) to form one or more ducts for a flow of air along the outer surface of said manifold (2) (Niederdraenk, [0035], Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
308
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Portion of Figure 1 of Niederdraenk
Regarding Claim 9
Niederdraenk discloses the propulsion system according to claim 4. Niederdraenk further discloses that the manifold (2) passes through a heat exchange section (4) of the conduit (7); the conduit (7) being sealed on said manifold (2) so as to obtain a first pass for exhaust gases (within (2)) and a second pass for an air flow (between (2) and (4)); wherein the first pass and the second pass are separated from each other, and the exhaust gases and the air flow do not mix (Niederdraenk, [0040], Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 10
Niederdraenk discloses the propulsion system according to claim 4. Niederdraenk further discloses that the conduit (7) comprises a body having an inner cavity communicating with the outside through an air intake (7) and an outlet (14) (Niederdraenk, [0017] and [0040], Figure 1); wherein the heat exchange section (4) is interposed along the conduit (7) between the air intake (7) and the outlet (14); and wherein the conduit (7) has a terminal section (14) comprising a movable flap (16) which selectively varies, in use, the passage section of the terminal section (14) (Niederdraenk, [0040], Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11
Niederdraenk discloses the propulsion system according to claim 10. Niederdraenk further discloses a control unit (17) configured to adjust the position of the movable flap (16) in relation to the conduit body as a function of the instantaneous travel conditions of the vehicle [interpreted as simply requiring the varying of the position of the movable flap based on an input – see rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b)] (Niederdraenk, [0022] [0029] and [0040]), Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 12
Niederdraenk discloses a vehicle comprising an endothermic engine and a propulsion system according to claim 4 (Niederdraenk, Abstract).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niederdraenk et al., US 2017/0036510, in view of Favaretto, US 2024/0295190.
Regarding Claim 2
Niederdraenk discloses the method according to claim 1. However, Niederdraenk does not explicitly disclose the step of accelerating and increasing the air flow pressure upstream of the heat exchange section, in particular by means of a Venturi tube [interpreted as not being required – see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above].
Favaretto teaches a propulsion assembly for a motor vehicle, wherein the diameter of the air feed line (18) decreases and increases [it is inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art that a decrease in diameter of a flow passage accelerates air flow, while an increase in diameter increases air flow pressure] (Favaretto, [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the air feed line of Favaretto for the nondisclosed feed line of Niederdraenk, since an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niederdraenk et al., US 2017/0036510, in view of Morishima et al., US 5,701,736.
Regarding Claim 5
Niederdraenk discloses the propulsion system according to claim 4. However, Niederdraenk does not explicitly discloses a plurality of fins, each protruding from a respective portion of the external surface of the manifold.
Morishima teaches an exhaust gas manifold comprising: a plurality of fins (40-1), each protruding from a respective portion of the external surface of the manifold (22) (Morishima, Figure 1).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the propulsion system of Niederdraenk such that the exhaust gas manifold comprises a plurality of fins, each protruding from a respective portion of the external surface of the manifold as is taught by Morishima as well known in the art in order to increase cooling performance (Morishima, Column 6, Lines 55-58, Figures 1 and 4)
Regarding Claim 6
Niederdraenk and Morishima teach the propulsion system according to claim 5. Morishima further teaches that each fin (40-1) is a thin body having two significantly larger dimensions [length, width] than a third dimension [thickness] (Morishima, Figures 1 and 4).
Regarding Claim 7
Niederdraenk and Morishima teach the propulsion system according to claim 5. Morishima further teaches a group of fins (F1, F2, annotated portion of Figure 1 of Morishima below) arranged to form one or more ducts [between fins (40-1)] for a flow of air which, in use, invests the manifold (Morishima, Figure 4 and annotated portion of Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
446
475
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Annotated Portion of Figure 1 of Morishima
Regarding Claim 8
Niederdraenk and Morishima teach the propulsion system according to claim 7. Morishima further teaches a first group of fins (F1, annotated portion of Figure 1 of Morishima above) and a second group of fins (F2, annotated portion of Figure 1 of Morishima above), wherein the fins of the first group (F1) are transversal, in particular perpendicular, to the fins of the second group (F2) (Morishima, annotated portion of Figure 1 above and Figure 4).
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- Northrop (US 2017/0348659) – Manifold with fins
- Kinsel (US 6,990,806) – Exhaust header
- Neisen (US 6,358,109) – air cooled exhaust
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY L STANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3565. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, DEVON KRAMER can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/K.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights