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 .
DUCT BODY AND VEHICLE
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/449,076 Art Unit: 1727 October 6, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on June 05, 2026 has been received. Claims 1 and 5-6 are currently pending. Claims 1 and 5 have been amended. Claims 2-4 have been canceled. Claim 6 is newly added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites an intended use for a duct body. The courts have held that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"). See MPEP 2111.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) on claims 4-5 are withdrawn because Applicant has canceled claim 4.
Claims 1 and 5-6 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 1 recites the limitation "the heating element is a battery". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 is drawn to a duct body with the intended use with a heating element, which is a separate structure from the duct body and is therefore not positively recited in the claim.
The term “dot-like” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “dot-like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what projection structures read on the claim and what do not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahiro on claim 1 has been withdrawn because Applicant has amended the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takahiro and Takeshi on claims 2 and 4 have been withdrawn because Applicant has canceled the claims.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takahiro on claim 3 has been withdrawn because Applicant has canceled the claim.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takahiro, Takeshi and Nagata on claim 5 has been withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahiro et al. (JP 2021-146852; as found in IDS dated 6/3/2024 and using machine translation for citation purposes) in view of Takeshi (JP 2005-324615; as found in IDS dated 6/3/2024 and using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claim 1, Takahiro discloses a duct body, comprising: an upstream duct (air conditioner) 18 having a concave portion 88; a downstream duct (second duct member) 70 having a convex portion 102 that overlaps and fits with the concave portion (fitting structure 80a) such that the upstream duct is disposed outside the downstream duct via an air layer (gap formed between the fitting structure formed from connection seal member 100; reads on heat insulating structure on an upstream side of the fitting structure); (Fig. 6 and 9 and paragraphs [0036, 0048, 0051, 0055]). The connection seal member 100 reads on the claimed projection portion that forms an air layer and the connection seal member has a shape that reads on a “dot-like” shape (Fig 9). The upstream duct 18 comprises an enlarged opening portion 102 at a downstream end, and an inner diameter of the enlarged opening portion is larger than an inner diameter of the upstream duct in the heat insulating structure. The claimed limitation for the heating element being for a battery does not further limit the structure of the claimed duct body. In addition, the courts have held that the claimed shape was a matter of choice which a person with ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence the claimed shape was significant, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the projection to be that of a dot because Takahiro teaches that the airtightness between the two ducts can be improved (paragraph [0074]).
Takahiro does not specifically disclose the claimed length ratio or the length of the heat insulating structure. However, the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, see MPEP 2144.04. IV, A. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ducts of Takahiro to read on the claims because Takahiro teaches that the airtightness between the two ducts can be improved (paragraph [0074]).
Takahiro does not specifically disclose the claimed resin ducts.
However, Takeshi teaches of ducts having resin portions (paragraph [0012]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ducts of Takahiro to comprise resin because Takeshi teaches that heat insulation and rigidity of the duct is improved (paragraph [0012]).
As to Claim 6, Takahiro discloses wherein the upstream duct 18 has a region 90a upstream of the overlapping region where the downstream duct 70 does not exist and the downstream duct 70 has a region 70a downstream of the overlapping region where the upstream duct does not exist (Fig. 9).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahiro et al. (JP 2021-146852; as found in IDS dated 6/3/2024 and using machine translation for citation purposes) in view of Takeshi (JP 2005-324615; as found in IDS dated 6/3/2024 and using machine translation for citation purposes) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above and in further view of Nagata et al. (US 2010/0089675 A1).
As to Claim 5, Takahiro discloses an electric vehicle, a battery (heating element) that is disposed behind the rear seats (paragraphs [0014-0015]). Takahiro does not specifically disclose a hybrid electric vehicle.
However, Nagata teaches of a hybrid electric vehicle or an electric vehicle comprising a battery and a duct body connected thereto (paragraphs [0024 and 0044]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vehicle of Takahiro to be a hybrid electric vehicle because Nagata teaches that a battery pack that can be temperature controlled can be implemented in a hybrid vehicle (Abstract). In addition, the courts have held that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, see KSR, MPEP 2143, I, D.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 05, 2026 with respect to the independent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principle arguments are:
a) Takahiro does not teach the claimed “dot-like shape” (claim 1).
b) Takahiro does not teach the claimed length ratio or the claimed length of the heat insulating structure (claim 1).
c) Takahiro is silent to the claimed heat insulating structure formed by an air layer as claimed (claim 1).
d) The claimed “dot-like shape” provides for an air layer to more easily diffuse heat (claim 1).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
a) Takahiro does teach of a protrusion 100 that has a “dot-like shape”. In addition, the courts have held that the claimed shape was a matter of choice which a person with ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence the claimed shape was significant, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B.
b) The courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, see MPEP 2144.04. IV, A.
c) Takahiro discloses the claimed heat insulating structure as discussed in the rejection above.
d) Applicant has not provided any direct evidence to support the supposed criticality for the claimed “dot-like shape”. In addition, the original disclosure does not provide any direct reasoning for using a “dot-like shape” which is only recited in paragraph [0046] of the PGPub. The original disclosure further teaches that the shape of the projection portion is not particularly limited in paragraph [0048] of the PGPub.
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 ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights