Hadn't thought of that issue before you raised it, but excellent question! Sure haven't any idea...Pretty much seals the deal. Curious about what they are using to drive the compressor.
Based in their drawing and the packaging we've seen so far, it would appear to be driven from the injection pump area. Next up is what about intercooler? See any patents on that design?Hadn't thought of that issue before you raised it, but excellent question! Sure haven't any idea...
I agree with this as well. I've filed a few as well.I have some patents myself. You intentionally write them as vaguely as the patent office will let you by with. The reason is that the more specific it is, the less breadth it covers, and thus the less powerful it is. Just as a random example, if it is vague about the number of cylinders, then it covers any number of cylinders. If you specifically say 8 cylinders, then it does not cover 4, 6 or 12 (or any other number of cylinders).
Also, you put as many claims in the initial filing as you can. For example, one claim may be for "one or more cylinders..." Another may be for "any even number of cylinders..." Another may be for 8. Then the patent office may strike some of the claims in the patent filing down, but let you have the other claims in there. You cast your net as widely as you can, and see what they will let stick. Sometimes you will be surprised at how generous they can be (I sometimes think it depends on how tired the patent reviewers are, or how much work they have piled up - they sometimes allow surprisingly vague claims).
Yes, the layout in the patent is not what is being used in the mockups. I personally don't think any of this seals the deal on a forced induction Z06. To me it looks like someone putting together a number of disjointed points of information and trying to draw a conclusion from it.The layout they describe seems to be as odds with the sketch shown in the patent. I did catch what looks to be intercooler lines in the next sketch just to the right of the intake.
All are very valid points.I suppose it depends on the philosophy of the company, and the industry they are in. Since the USA has historically been a country recognizing "first-to-invent" instead of "first-to-file", we often waited until very late in the development cycle before we filed. One advantage to waiting is once you make something public, competitors can get a better idea about what your product roadmap is; waiting keeps them more in the dark. Also, the longer you wait, the more sure you can be that it really works and is worthwhile. Also, later in development you know more about what the truly critical areas are which must be protected. So some companies take the approach that it makes sense to only file shortly before public release of the product which uses it (you actually have one year from the date the invention appears in a product until the deadline to file or be forced to give up on your claim to the invention).
Given that it was filed in May 2012, I would guess that it is for the 2015 Z06. If that were us, we probably would have only filed a month or two ago if it were for the Z06; so from my perspective, this is either for the Z06, or it was for a product which has since been shelved.
On the other hand, I am in the electronics field where the industry changes so rapidly. Maybe the automobile industry operates on a longer development cycle. What field are you in, Crawler?