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 March 2, 2026 DETAILED ACTION The Application filed on August 14, 2023 has been received. Claims 1- 5 are currently pending and have been fully considered . Claim Interpretation Claim 1 recites an intended use for a duct body . The courts have held that “i f 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 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 4-5 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 4 recites the limitation "the heating element is a battery" in lines 6-7. 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. 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. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahiro et al. (JP 2021-146852; 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]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim (s) 2 and 4 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 2, Takahiro does not specifically disclose wherein either of the upstream of downstream ducts have a projection portion configured to from the air layer. However, Takeshi teaches of a duct wherein an air layer is formed between and outer and inner wall with a rib (projection) 36 (Fig. 1-3 and paragraphs [0003, 0010 and 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 the claimed projection because Takeshi teaches that heat insulation and rigidity of the duct is improved ( paragraph [0012] ). As to Claim 4 , Takahiro discloses various shapes for the ends of the first and second ducts (Fig. 5 and 7-9). 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]). Claim (s) 3 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) . As to Claim 3, Takahiro discloses various shapes for the ends of the first and second ducts (Fig. 5 and 7-9). 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]). 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 1-2 and 4 above and in further view of Nagata et al. (US 2010/0089675 A1) . As to Claim 5, Takahiro discloses a n electric vehicle, a battery (heating element) that is disposed behind the rear seats (paragraph s [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 o ne 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 . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5116 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Barbara Gilliam can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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