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 .
Status of Claims
In the response dated 05/26/2026, the status of the claims are as follows:
Claims 1 and 4-5 have been amended.
Claims 2-3 have been cancelled.
Claims 6-8 have been newly added.
Claims 1, and 4-8 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 102/103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schneider (US20090280736A1).
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 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schneider (US20090280736A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schneider teaches
a vehicle vent duct (housing 10) comprising:
a duct body (frame 12 and bracket 14, figs. 1-5) that is attached to a vehicle body (“The housing or the frame of the back-air blocking device of the present invention is made in known manner using a known two-component injection molding procedure to comprise one or more peripheral sealing lips made of a soft, flexible material to match the housing/frame to the geometry of the motor vehicle”) [0011] and configured to include an opening that communicates an inside of a vehicle cabin with an outside of the vehicle cabin (“In the event the air pressure inside the vehicle exceeds that of the outside, the foam valve plate flexes outward and thereby opens an aperture in the frame” [0011]), and a locking claw portion provided at an upper edge of the opening (lug 30 of bearing segments 24 and 36, figs. 1 and 4); and
a valve body (valve flap 38) that is locked to the locking claw portion of the duct body (“The bearing segments 24 , 36 support one side of the valve flaps 38” [0024]; fig. 4) in a swingable state (“If the air pressure inside the vehicle exceeds atmospheric, then, as shown in FIGS. 1 and 5, the valve flaps 38 pivot to open and allow air exhaustion from the vehicle. In the opposite case, that is when the ambient pressure is higher than inside the vehicle, the flaps 38 will move into their closed position”) [0027]; figs. 4-5) and covers the opening (fig. 4), the valve body being made of a flexible material (“the flaps 38 are supported in a way that they may pivot by a relatively large angle into their open position without undergoing deformation. If the pivot angle of FIG. 5 is exceeded, the flaps 38 will deform. While the flap material is fairly rigid, it is nevertheless well suited to undergo bending when subjected to significant forces” [0027]), wherein:
the locking claw portion is provided with a swing limiting portion that limits swing of an upper portion of the valve body (side of body of lug 30 comprising first stop face 31, figs. 4-5);
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 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 (first stop face 31 of lug 30, figs. 4-5); and
the contact surface has a convex shape that protrudes toward the valve body (convex shape of first stop face 31 of lug 30, figs. 4-5; deforming of valve flap 38 described in [0027] would result in valve flap 38 contacting convex section of first stop face 31)
Regarding claim 4, Schneider teaches the vehicle vent duct according to claim 1,
wherein a gap between an upper end portion of the contact surface and the duct body is made to be equal to a thickness of the valve body or larger than the thickness of the valve body (as shown on first annotated fig. 4 below, the gap between first stop face 31 of lug 30 and the bracket 14 is larger than the thickness of the valve flap 38)
PNG
media_image1.png
267
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
First annotated fig. 4 of Schneider
Regarding claim 6, Schneider teaches the vehicle vent duct according to claim 1,
wherein the convex shape of the contact surface protrudes toward the opening (as shown on fig. 4)
Regarding claim 7, Schneider teaches the vehicle vent duct according to claim 1,
wherein the contact surface is provided at the position facing the valve body so as to face a major surface of the valve body facing away from the opening (as shown on fig. 4)
Regarding claim 8, Schneider teaches the vehicle vent duct according to claim 1,
wherein the contact surface overlaps the opening in a direction substantially perpendicular to a reference plane along which a perimeter of the opening is primarily disposed (as shown on second annotated fig. 4 of Schneider below)
PNG
media_image2.png
327
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Second annotated fig. 4 of Schneider
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 and 5-7 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 Schneider (US20090280736A1).
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
the locking claw portion is provided with a swing limiting portion that limits swing of an upper portion of the valve body
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 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; and
the contact surface has a convex shape that protrudes toward the valve body
Schneider teaches
the locking claw portion is provided with a swing limiting portion that limits swing of an upper portion of the valve body (side of body of lug 30 comprising first stop face 31, figs. 4-5);
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 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 (first stop face 31 of lug 30, figs. 4-5); and
the contact surface has a convex shape that protrudes toward the valve body (convex shape of first stop face 31 of lug 30, figs. 4-5; deforming of valve flap 38 described in [0027] would result in valve flap 38 contacting convex section of first stop face 31)
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 lug 30 configuration of Schneider to the plate-like bodies 31 of Hamada, in order to prevent the valve body from excessive overturning or deformation while in use.
Regarding claim 5, Schneider teaches the vehicle vent duct according to claim 1, wherein:
the vehicle vent duct further comprises a second locking claw portion and a second valve body is arranged below the locking claw portion and valve body in an up-down direction (fig. 1a-1b of Hamada); and
a swing limiting portion of the second locking claw is configured to have a larger restriction amount of swing than the swing limiting portion of the locking claw portion (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 lug 30 as modified by Schneider reads on the swing limiting portion located below, and the opening 29 comprising vertical width h2 and a lug 30 as modified by Schneider 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)
Regarding claim 6, Hamada, as modified, teaches the vehicle vent duct according to claim 1,
wherein the convex shape of the contact surface protrudes toward the opening (as shown on fig. 4 of Schneider)
Regarding claim 7, Hamada, as modified, teaches the vehicle vent duct according to claim 1,
wherein the contact surface is provided at the position facing the valve body so as to face a major surface of the valve body facing away from the opening (as shown on fig. 4 of Schneider)
Conclusion
The prior art of record not relied upon includes:
Chen (US20230356565A1) and Morikawa (JP2015171843A), as applied in the previous office action, which teach similar vehicle vent ducts to that claimed
Shimizu (DE102015224548A1) and Miyagi (JP2009067148A), which teach similar vehicle vent ducts to that claimed
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 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
Prosecution Insights