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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed on 12/01/2025 have been received, to which the Applicant is thanked.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered, but have not been found to be persuasive.
In response to Applicants argument on page 7 regarding the combination of Matsuda in view of Polakoff, wherein with Matsuda in particular, one would not be motivated for the combination because Matsuda already shows the principles taught by Polakoff,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments leave out the fact that regardless of what Matsuda shows, and its particulars, Polakoff teaches separate elements that can also have the same desired effect; in fact it would seem to make the stated purpose more efficient, overcoming the Applicants argument.
In response to Applicants argument on page 8 regarding the combination of Matsuda and Polakoff renders Matsuda inoperable for its intended purpose because placing the fan of Matsuda at the position of the fan of Polakoff would not let air into the vehicle cabin of Matsuda and only exhaust air out of the outlet,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments seem ignore that the structure through which the airflow must pass is not changed at all, and given the claim language as constructed is replicated in the prior art, of which MPEP 2115 says material or article worked on does not limit an apparatus claim provided the apparatus is capable of performing the claimed function. The prior art is capable of performing the claimed function as currently constructed, with suction still being generated with Matsudas fan positioned in the location of the fan of Polakoff by nature of the Venturi effect and the airflow’s movement over the opening in the boundary, overcoming the Applicants argument.
In response to Applicants argument on page 10 regarding newly amended claim language and the rationale and motivation previous indicated in the argument above,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are directed to new amendments to the claim language, which have been addressed in the rejection below regarding the electric fan, of which the Applicants argument over the motivation for the combination having already been determined above, overcoming the Applicants argument.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, & 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al (JPS5647316), hereinafter referred to as Matsuda, in view of Garland (US 1,654,166), in further view of Polakoff et al (US 2021/0071879), hereinafter referred to as Polakoff.
Regarding claim 1, Matsuda (JPS5647316) shows a ventilator of an enclosure, the ventilator comprising: a ram airflow path (21, Fig. 4) into a venturi, along one or more openings (Fig. 1/4 – the boundary 5 comprises of one or more openings, of which a ventilator 1 is positioned over each opening, as can be seen in Fig. 1) in a boundary (R, Fig. 4) of the enclosure (I, Fig. 4 – the area of inside a vehicle is an enclosure), and out an outlet (3, Fig. 4); and a suction flow path (22, Fig. 4) from the enclosure, through the one or more openings of the boundary (Fig. 4), and out the outlet (Fig. 4), wherein the ram airflow path is configured to ventilate the enclosure using shear along the one or more openings in the boundary to generate suction flow through the suction flow path (Fig. 4 – As the Applicant states the ram airflow path is configured to ventilate the enclosure using shear along the one or more openings in the boundary to generate suction flow through the suction flow path, by virtue of having the airflow travel over the top of the louvered grille 330, as does Matsuda show with the ram airflow path being configured to ventilate the enclosure using shear along the one or more openings in the boundary to generate suction flow through the suction flow path, by having the airflow travel over top of the one or more openings in the boundary).
However, Matsuda lacks showing the ram airflow path forms into a venturi.
Garland (US 1,654,166), a ventilator for a vehicle, is in the same field of endeavor as Matsuda which is a ventilator for a vehicle.
Garland teaches the ram airflow path into a venturi (Fig. 1 – as the Applicant claims the shown shape to be understood as a venturi, as does Garland teach with the same structure, as the MPEP 2115 states “material or article worked on does not limit an apparatus claim provided the apparatus is capable of performing the claimed function”. Garland teaches the same structure and shape of the venturi along the ram airflow path generally understood as being the area where element 15 is indicated, after the inlet generally understood as being where element 13 is indicated, as the ram air flow path has a flat bottom surface with a concave upper surface, with the exhausting air being induced by the direction of flow of the ram airflow path).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ram airflow path of Matsuda to incorporate the ram airflow path of Garland, which would be an arrangement to assist in the exhausting of the vehicle with parts that would be readily available and at a small expense (Page 1, Lines 13-16).
However, while Matsuda shows the ram air flow path and the outlet, Matsuda lacks showing an electric fan positioned substantially at the outlet, and configured to generate suction flow through the suction flow path, and direct it out the outlet.
Polakoff (US 2021/0071879), a vehicle with a ventilator, is in the same field of endeavor as Matsuda which is a vehicle with a ventilator.
Polakoff teaches an electric fan (36, Fig. 7) positioned substantially at the outlet (Fig. 7 – the outlet is located generally where element 42 is identified), and configured to generate suction flow through the suction flow path (Fig. 7 – the electric fan is configured to generate suction flow through the suction flow path; the suction flow path can be seen with the flow arrows in Fig. 7), and direct it out the outlet (Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outlet and flow path of Matsuda, to incorporate the teachings of the electric fan and airflow path of Polakoff, which would provide an arrangement to prevent wind, rain, and debris from entering the exhaust system (¶0004).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuda shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the ram airflow path.
However, Matsuda lacks showing wherein the electric fan is positioned at an acute angle relative to the ram airflow path.
Polakoff teaches wherein the electric fan (36, Fig. 7) is positioned at an acute angle relative to the airflow path (Fig. 7 – the electric fan is positioned at an acute angle relative to the airflow path, which can be seen with the airflow arrows).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outlet and flow path of Matsuda, to incorporate the teachings of the electric fan and airflow path of Polakoff, which would provide an arrangement to prevent wind, rain, and debris from entering the exhaust system (¶0004).
Regarding claim 5, Matsuda shows wherein the boundary of the enclosure comprises a louvered or perforated grille (6, Fig. 4 - Fig. 4 – the boundary 5 comprises of the grill 6, which a grill comprises of at least one opening, or perforation, which air passes through).
Regarding claim 8, Matsuda shows wherein the enclosure is a cargo space of a vehicle (I, Fig. 4 – the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand an area of inside the vehicle, which is a bus, is a place for storage of people and their various possessions, or cargo), and the ventilator is positioned on a roof of the vehicle (R, Fig. 4 – element R is the ceiling of the bus).
Regarding claim 9, Matsuda shows wherein the enclosure is a portion of a cargo space (I, Fig. 4 – the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand an area of inside the vehicle, which is a bus, is a place for storage of people and their various possessions, or cargo) subdivided using one or more bulkheads (Fig. 1 – as the Applicant discloses the current device to also comprise of a vehicle subdivided using one or more bulkheads, as does Matsuda show the cargo space being subdivided using one or more bulkheads, as vehicles have bulkheads in the engine compartment and the passenger compartment, among other places).
Regarding claim 10, Matsuda shows wherein the shear is associated with a reduced pressure that induces the suction flow through the suction flow path (Fig. 4 – Matsuda has shown the applicable claimed structure(s); MPEP 2115 says material or article worked on does not limit an apparatus claim provided the apparatus is capable of performing the claimed function. And as outlined with the structure above, shearing occurs in the device, and as such, the shear is associated with a reduced pressure that induces the suction flow through the suction flow path).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al (JPS5647316), hereinafter referred to as Matsuda, in view of Garland (US 1,654,166), in further view of Polakoff et al (US 2021/0071879), hereinafter referred to as Polakoff, in further view of Bouthors et al (US 3,448,674), hereinafter referred to as Bouthors.
Regarding claim 3, Matsuda shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the enclosure and the suction flow path.
However, Matsuda lacks showing further comprising: a moveable flap configured to close a ram inlet of the ventilator when the enclosure is stationary, and wherein the electric fan is in the suction flow path configured to generate second suction flow through the suction flow path when the enclosure is stationary.
Bouthors (US 3,448,674), an air conditioning system for a vehicle, is in the same field of endeavor as Matsuda which is an air conditioning system for a vehicle.
Bouthors teaches a moveable flap (9, Fig. 2) configured to close a ram inlet (8, Fig. 2) of the ventilator when the enclosure is stationary (Abstract – the movable flap 9 is configured to close the ram inlet 8 of the ventilator when the enclosure, or vehicle in which the enclosure is located, is stopped, with the movable flap to be normally closed), and wherein the electric fan (5, Fig. 3) is in the suction flow path (Fig. 2) configured to generate second suction flow through the suction flow path when the enclosure is stationary (Abstract – the fan is configured to generate second suction flow through the suction flow path when the vehicle is stationary or stopped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ventilator of Matsuda to incorporate the teachings of the ventilator of Bouthors, which would provide a ventilator in a location where the dynamic air pressure acting upon the running vehicle can be exerted freely (Col. 1 Lines 29-32).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al (JPS5647316), hereinafter referred to as Matsuda, in view of Garland (US 1,654,166), in further view of Polakoff et al (US 2021/0071879), hereinafter referred to as Polakoff, in further view of Findley (US 2,445,392).
Regarding claim 4, Matsuda shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including a ram inlet (2, Fig. 5) of the ventilator, and the electric fan.
However, Matsuda lacks showing further comprising: a moveable flap configured to gradually open a ram inlet of the ventilator as speed of the enclosure increases, and wherein the electric fan is configured to throttle down as the speed of the enclosure increases.
Findley (US 2,445,392), an HVAC system for a vehicle, is in the same field of endeavor as Matsuda which is an HVAC system for a vehicle.
Findley teaches a moveable flap (74, Fig. 3) configured to gradually open a ram inlet (29, Fig. 1/3) of the ventilator as speed of the enclosure increases (Col. 5, Lines 32-41 – the vehicle opens the flap 74 in order to go faster, therein, as the vehicle, of which comprises of the enclosure, reaches a high speed, the electric fan is 24 is not being driven), and wherein the electric fan is in the suction flow path configured to throttle down as the speed of the enclosure increases (Col. 5, Lines 32-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ventilator of Matsuda to incorporate the teachings of the movable flap and electric fan of Findley, which would provide an improved apparatus having control means for controlling the operation of the blower and the delivery of air to the passenger compartment (Col. 1, Lines 22-27).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al (JPS5647316), hereinafter referred to as Matsuda, in view of Garland (US 1,654,166), in further view of Pine et al (US 1,955,088), hereinafter referred to as Pine.
Regarding claim 6, Matsuda shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including wherein the boundary of the enclosure comprises: a first grille (6, Fig. 4) with first openings (Fig. 4 - the first grill 6 comprises of first openings).
However, Matsuda lacks showing a second grille that is positioned under the first grille and includes a solid portion configured to catch water falling through the first openings.
Pine (US 2010/0170398), a ventilator for a vehicle, is in the same field of endeavor as Matsuda which is a ventilator for a vehicle.
Pine teaches a second grille (17, Fig. 1) that is positioned under the first grille (25, Fig. 1) and includes a solid portion (Fig. 1 – element 17, of which comprises of openings 26, is a solid portion that is configured to capture water falling through the first openings 22, before the water is discharged from the openings 26) configured to catch water falling through the first openings (Fig. 1, Page 2, Col. 2, Lines 103-110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first grille of Matsuda to incorporate the first and second grille of Pine, which would provide an arrangement that would assist in the positive regulation of the ventilation without dirt or weather getting into the interior of the car (Page 1, Col. 1, Lines 29-33).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is allowed.
Regarding claim 17, the closest prior art of record is Matsuda et al (JPS5647316), however this reference does not disclose wherein the boundary comprises a grille having bell mouthed inlets, the throat that forms into a venturi, an electric fan positioned substantially at the outlet and configured to generate suction flow from the cargo space. The Examiner finds no reasonable rationale that would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsuda with bell mouthed inlets as it would change the rate of the airflow out of the boundary which would change the turbulence or airflow downstream from there, effecting the operability and continuity of any element downstream effected by a unique airstream from the bell mouthed inlets.
Claim 7 is still 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762