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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen (US20230356565A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches
a vehicle vent duct (“a ventilation device for air flowing inside and outside vehicle”) [0014] comprising:
a duct body (installating frame 10) that is attached to a vehicle body (“the installating frame 10 is installed on the vehicle body”) [0015] and configured to include an opening that communicates an inside of a vehicle cabin with an outside of the vehicle cabin (vents 122), and a locking claw portion provided at an upper edge of the opening (clamping part 123, figs. 3-4); and
a valve body (valve plate 20) that is locked to the locking claw portion of the duct body in a swingable state (“the valve plates 20 being clamped into the clamping plates 123 . A size of the two retaining plates 1232 should match that of a socket slot 21 of the valve plate 20 , which will be described in detail with the valve plate 20 . Since the valve plate 20 is retained between the right angle edge of the retaining plates 1232 and the frame 121 , the valve plate 20 is bent at the position in contact with the retaining plate 1232 when the valve plates 20 pivot from the stationary position to the open direction. Due to the deformation caused by the bending of the valve plate 20 , it has a restoring force to restore the original position. Therefore, when the air pressure inside and outside the vehicle is balanced, the valve plate 20 can immediately return to the original position”) [0016] and covers the opening (“the valve plates 20 cover and press on the vent 122 by the installing angle of the mounting frame 10 under gravity”) [0015], the valve body being made of a flexible material (“The valve plate 20 may be made of flexible materials” [0018]), wherein the locking claw portion is provided with a swing limiting portion that limits swing of an upper portion of the valve body (valve plate stopper 125, fig. 5; “corresponding to the number of the clamping parts 123 , each of the secondary frame 12 has two valve plate stoppers 125 disposed thereon. The valve plate stopper 125 is preferably hinged on the clamping parts 123” [0020]; “The valve plate stopper 125 is arranged for pressing the valve plate 20 towards the vent 122 . Therefore, when the valve plate 20 pivots in its open direction, the valve plate stopper 125 can prevent the valve plate 20 from excessive overturning or deformation” [0019])
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches the vehicle vent duct according to claim 1,
wherein the swing limiting portion is configured to include a contact surface that is provided at a position facing the valve body in the locking claw portion (face of stop rod 1252 that faces and contacts valve plate 20, fig. 6-7) and comes into contact with the valve body when the valve body opens from a closed state in which the valve body covers the opening (orientation as shown on fig. 6; “The valve plate stopper 125 is arranged for pressing the valve plate 20 towards the vent 122 . Therefore, when the valve plate 20 pivots in its open direction, the valve plate stopper 125 can prevent the valve plate 20 from excessive overturning or deformation” [0019])
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches the vehicle vent duct according to claim 2,
wherein the contact surface is a curved surface (fig. 7) that is curved such that the valve body side is protruded (upper and lower ends of stop rod 1252 protrude towards valve plate 20, figs. 6-7)
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches the vehicle vent duct according to claim 3,
wherein a gap between an upper end portion of the curved surface and the duct body is made to be equal to a thickness of the valve body or slightly larger than the thickness of the valve body (since “The valve plate stopper 125 is preferably hinged on the clamping parts 123” [0020] via the first and second V-shaped parts 1255 and 1256, the upper end of the curved surface of stop rod 1252 is located below the retaining plates 1232 to which the stopper 125 is mounted; as shown on annotated fig. 5 below, the gap between clamping part 123 and the duct body is slightly larger than the thickness of the valve plate 20)
PNG
media_image1.png
342
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 5 of Chen
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morikawa (JP2015171843A), referring to the English translation dated 03/03/2026.
Regarding claim 1, Morikawa teaches
a vehicle vent duct (vent duct 10) comprising:
a duct body (duct main body 20) that is attached to a vehicle body (“the vent duct 10 is a quarter vent duct provided on the rear side of the vehicle 12”) [0018] and configured to include an opening that communicates an inside of a vehicle cabin with an outside of the vehicle cabin (“The interior A and the exterior B are communicated with each other through the four openings 38”) [0024], and a locking claw portion provided at an upper edge of the opening (support portions 46A and 50A; “the end of the support portion 46A may be bent to prevent the on-off valve 22 from coming off” [0029]); and
a valve body (on-off valve 22) that is locked to the locking claw portion of the duct body in a swingable state (“on-off valve 22 is swingably suspended by the support portion 50A”) [0027] and covers the opening (figs 1-2), the valve body being made of a flexible material (“the on-off valve 22 is bent and deformed toward the vehicle outside B side from the notch 54A, as shown in FIG. The opening 38 can be further opened. Thus, by providing the notch 54A, the on-off valve 22 can be bent and deformed to increase the amount of ventilation… In addition, bending deformation here is not limited to the deformation | transformation which the on-off valve 22 is bend | folded as shown by FIG. 6, but it is the concept also including bending deformation etc” [0042]; thus, since on-off valve 22 may also be capable of “bending deformation”, the valve body being made of a flexible material is taught), wherein the locking claw portion is provided with a swing limiting portion that limits swing of an upper portion of the valve body (upper edge portion 44, as shown on figs. 4-5)
Regarding claim 2, Morikawa teaches the vehicle vent duct according to claim 1,
wherein the swing limiting portion is configured to include a contact surface that is provided at a position facing the valve body in the locking claw portion (contact surface of upper edge portion 44 that faces and contacts 52A portion of on-off valve 22 on fig. 5) and comes into contact with the valve body when the valve body opens from a closed state in which the valve body covers the opening (from closed state of fig. 4 to open state of fig. 5, upper edge portion 44 contacts 52A portion of on-off valve 22)
Regarding claim 3, Morikawa teaches the vehicle vent duct according to claim 2,
wherein the contact surface is a curved surface (upper edge portion 44 comprises curved shape, figs. 4-5) that is curved such that the valve body side is protruded (on-off valve 22 side of upper edge portion 44 protrudes from upper wall 28, fig. 2)
Regarding claim 4, Morikawa teaches the vehicle vent duct according to claim 3,
wherein a gap between an upper end portion of the curved surface and the duct body is made to be equal to a thickness of the valve body or slightly larger than the thickness of the valve body (as shown on annotated fig. 2 below, the gap between the curved surface of upper edge portion 44 and upper wall 28 is shown to be approximately the same thickness as on-off valve 22)
PNG
media_image2.png
388
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 2 of Morikawa
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) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada (JP2006168550A), referring to the English translation dated 03/03/2026, in view of Chen (US20230356565A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hamada teaches
a vehicle vent duct (air outlet 1) comprising:
a duct body (outlet body 22) that is attached to a vehicle body (“the air outlet 1 uses the left and right rear pillars at the rear of the one-box car (not shown) to ventilate the air in the passenger compartment R to the outside of the vehicle”) [0027] and configured to include an opening that communicates an inside of a vehicle cabin with an outside of the vehicle cabin (opening 29), and a locking claw portion provided at an upper edge of the opening (clasps 33, fig. 1); and
a valve body (plate-like bodies 31) that is locked to the locking claw portion of the duct body in a swingable state (via restraining portions 32; “the plate-like body 31 is mounted so as to be able to swing the swinging lower edge on the lower end side, with the bending center line L connecting the pair of upper-end restraining portions 32 as the swing center” [0037]) and covers the opening, the valve body being made of a flexible material (“A flexible plate-like body 31 that opens and closes each opening 29 is attached to each opening 29” [0036])
Hamada does not teach
wherein the locking claw portion is provided with a swing limiting portion that limits swing of an upper portion of the valve body
Chen teaches
wherein the locking claw portion is provided with a swing limiting portion that limits swing of an upper portion of the valve body (valve plate stopper 125, fig. 5; “corresponding to the number of the clamping parts 123 , each of the secondary frame 12 has two valve plate stoppers 125 disposed thereon. The valve plate stopper 125 is preferably hinged on the clamping parts 123” [0020]; “The valve plate stopper 125 is arranged for pressing the valve plate 20 towards the vent 122 . Therefore, when the valve plate 20 pivots in its open direction, the valve plate stopper 125 can prevent the valve plate 20 from excessive overturning or deformation” [0019])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the valve plate stoppers 125 of Chen to the plate-like bodies 31 of Hamada, in order to “prevent the valve plate 20 from excessive overturning or deformation” [0019 of Chen].
Regarding claim 2, Hamada, as modified, teaches the vehicle vent duct according to claim 1,
wherein the swing limiting portion is configured to include a contact surface that is provided at a position facing the valve body in the locking claw portion (face of stop rod 1252 that faces and contacts valve plate 20, fig. 6-7 of Chen) and comes into contact with the valve body when the valve body opens from a closed state in which the valve body covers the opening (orientation as shown on fig. 6; “The valve plate stopper 125 is arranged for pressing the valve plate 20 towards the vent 122 . Therefore, when the valve plate 20 pivots in its open direction, the valve plate stopper 125 can prevent the valve plate 20 from excessive overturning or deformation” [0019 of Chen])
Regarding claim 3, Hamada, as modified, teaches the vehicle vent duct according to claim 2,
wherein the contact surface is a curved surface (fig. 7 of Chen) that is curved such that the valve body side is protruded (upper and lower ends of stop rod 1252 protrude towards valve plate 20, figs. 6-7 of Chen)
Regarding claim 5, Hamada, as modified, teaches the vehicle vent duct according to claim 1, wherein:
a plurality of the locking claw portions and the valve bodies is arranged in an up-down direction (fig. 1a-1b of Hamada); and
the swing limiting portion located below is configured to have a larger restriction amount of swing of the valve body than the swing limiting portion located above (Hamada teaches “each of the plurality of plate-like bodies 31 is formed so as to change stepwise in a state in which the contact with the peripheral edge of the opposed opening 29 is different from each other. It was formed so as to have a different length from the shape 31” [0037]; “The four plate-like bodies 31 here have the same width B, and the vertical width H between the bending center line L connecting the pair of upper-end restraining portions 32 and the lower swinging edge 34 is different from each other“ [0038]; “even when the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the vehicle interior is relatively small, the small plate-like body 31 at the lowermost end is opened to reduce the large and small pressure difference inside and outside the vehicle interior with good responsiveness. When the target is large, all other relatively large plate-like bodies 31 are opened to open the relatively large opening 29, and a relatively large pressure difference inside and outside the vehicle compartment can be reduced with good responsiveness. Thus, as a whole, the four plate-like bodies 31 can change the degree of opening of each plate-like body 31 according to the pressure difference inside and outside the vehicle interior, and can exhibit accurate ventilation and pressure increase suppressing functions inside the vehicle interior” [0039]; thus, wherein the opening 29 comprising vertical width h4 and a valve plate stopper 125 as modified by Chen reads on the swing limiting portion located below, and the opening 29 comprising vertical width h2 and a valve plate stopper 125 as modified by Chen reads on the swing limiting portion located above, the restriction amount of the swing limiting portion located below is greater than that of the swing limiting portion located above since the plate-like body 31 located below does not open as far as plate-like body 31 located above at a given pressure difference; therefore, the combination of the swing limiting portion, opening angle, and length of the plate-like body 31 located below creates a larger restriction amount of swing of the plate-like body 31 than the swing associated with the limiting portion located above)
Conclusion
The prior art of record not relied upon includes:
Shimizu (DE102015224548A1) and Miyagi (JP2009067148A), which teach similar vehicle vent ducts to that claimed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRETT P. MALLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8am to 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, 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.
/BRETT P. MALLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762