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 CORRESPONDENCE
This is the first Office action on the merits for Application No. 18/233,296. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDSs’) received on 08/14/2023 and 01/22/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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 3-5 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 3 recites the limitation “the first conduit rear portion and the second conduit rear portion constitute a conduit rear portion molded as an integral component” in lines 3-4. It is unclear whether the conduit rear portion molded as an integral component of the combination of the first conduit rear portion and the second conduit rear portion or each of the first and second conduit rear portions is molded as an integral component. From the disclosure, Figures 2, 4 and 7 appear to show that each rear conduit portion of the first and second rear conduit is an independent component. Further clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the conduit rear portion has been interpreted as the combination of two individual integral components of the first and second rear conduit portions.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the first conduit front portion and the second conduit front portion constitute a conduit front portion molded as an integral component” in lines 3-4. It is unclear whether the conduit front portion is molded as an integral component of the combination of the first conduit front portion and the second conduit front portion or each of the first and second conduit front portions is molded as an integral component. From the disclosure, Figures 2, 4 and 7 appear to show that each front conduit portion of the first and second front conduit is an independent component. Further clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the conduit front portion has been interpreted as the combination of two individual integral components of the first and second front conduit portions.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the first conduit front portion and the second conduit front portion do not overlap each other in the vehicle vertical direction” in lines 6-7. It is unclear whether this to mean the whole portions of the two conduit front portions or part of the conduit portions do not overlap each other. From the disclosure, Figure 2 and paragraph [0045] appear to show that only the three portions 111a-11c of the two front conduit portions do not overlap while the front portions 111d of the two front conduit portions are overlapping each other. Further clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the arrangement of these portions has been interpreted as they do not completely overlap each another in a vertical direction, specifically from the top and side view perspectives.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a cross-sectional shape orthogonal to an extending direction longer in a vehicle left-right direction than in the vehicle vertical direction” in lines 3-6. It is unclear as to whether the cross-sectional shape is orthogonal to the extending direction of the vehicle, the vehicle left-right direction or vehicle direction and whether the length, width or thickness of the cross-sectional shape is longer to the other. Further clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the cross-sectional shape is interpreted as any cross-sectional shape of the first and second rear portions of the conduits.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsudo (US 2020/0208731 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsudo discloses a vehicle (see figs. 1-9 and annotated fig. 2 below, i.e., vehicle 1) comprising:
a vehicle body floor (see annotated fig. 3 below);
a bonnet space (BS) located on a front side (FR) in a vehicle front-rear direction with respect to the vehicle body floor;
a first conduit (11) extending from the bonnet space (BS) toward a rear side (i.e., rear side of the vehicle 1) in the vehicle front-rear direction below the vehicle body floor, the first conduit (11) including a first conduit front portion (CFP1) located on a front side and a first conduit rear portion (CRP1) located on a rear side with respect to the first conduit front portion (CFP1); and
a second conduit (71) extending from the bonnet space (BS) toward a rear side in the vehicle front-rear direction below the vehicle body floor, the second conduit (71) including a second conduit front portion (CFP2) located on a front side and a second conduit rear portion (CRP2) located on a rear side with respect to the second conduit front portion (CFP2), wherein the first conduit rear portion (CRP1) and the second conduit rear portion (CRP2) are arranged in a vehicle vertical direction below the vehicle body floor (i.e., the first and second conduit rear portions CRP1, CRP2 are arranged higher to one another in a vertical direction).
Regarding claim 2, Matsudo discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein in the bonnet space (BS), the first conduit front portion (CFP1) and the second conduit front portion (CFP2) extend in a direction inclined downward toward a rear side, and are arranged in a vehicle left-right direction (see Figures 2, 4 and 7-10).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Matsudo discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the first conduit rear portion (CRP1) and the second conduit rear portion (CRP2) constitute a conduit rear portion molded as an integral component (par. [0054]), and in the conduit rear portion, the first conduit rear portion (CRP1) and the second conduit rear portion (CRP2) do not overlap each other in a vehicle left-right direction (see Figures 2, 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Matsudo discloses the vehicle according to claim 2, wherein the first conduit front portion (CFP1) and the second conduit front portion (CFP2) constitute a conduit front portion molded as an integral component, and in the conduit front portion, the first conduit front portion (CFP1) and the second conduit front portion (CFP2) do not overlap each other in the vehicle vertical direction (see Figures 2 and 9).
Regarding claim 10, Matsudo discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein one of the first conduit (11) and the second conduit (71) is included in an engine intake duct (i.e., intake duct 71 connected to engine 70), and another one of the first conduit (11) and the second conduit (71) is included in a CVT intake duct (i.e., intake duct 11 connected to CVT 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
692
1018
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
592
790
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
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 5, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsudo as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US 2016/0332676 A1, from IDS filed 08/14/2025).
Matsudo discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first conduit rear portion (CRP1) or the second conduit rear portion (CRP2) includes a cross-sectional shape (i.e., rear end portion 111a is positioned perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the vehicle) orthogonal to an extending direction in a vehicle left-right direction (i.e., the length of the rear end portion 111a appears to be longer than the thickness of the conduit portion, shown in Figure 9) but does not specifically teach the dimensions of the cross-sectional portion.
However, Miller teaches a utility vehicle 2 includes an intake assembly 300 having two air conduits 302/304 arranged in the vehicle body 32 between the front and rear of the vehicle. Matsuo further teaches a cross-sectional shape (see annotated Figure 28 below, i.e., the length of the cross-sectional portion is substantially equivalent to the diameter of the conduit) of the fourth member 320a that is longer in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle and is perpendicular to the left and right direction of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Matsudo with a reasonable expectation of success to have a cross-sectional shape orthogonal to an extending direction longer in a vehicle left-right direction than in the vehicle vertical direction as taught by Miller for simple maintenance. Further, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the length of the cross-sectional shape longer than the thickness of the conduit portion as matter of a design choice. Since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size of the gears is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image3.png
683
542
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 28
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious a vehicle includes the features of claim 1 and in combination with the features recited.
Claims 7-9 are allowable as being dependent from an allowable base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Itoigawa (US 2021/0062704 A1) discloses an all-terrain vehicle includes an engine unit 7 coupled to intake ducts 11, 12 and an exhaust duct 13 for cooling a CVT 10, see Figures 1-5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tinh T Dang whose telephone number is (571)270-1776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at Mon-Friday from 8AM-4:30PM at (571) 272-2097. 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.
/TINH T DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655