DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on October 1st, 2025 for application no. 18/463,564 filed on September 8th, 2023. Claims 1 and 4-5 are pending. In the present amendment, claims 1 and 4-5 are amended, and claims 2-3 are canceled.
Examiner Note
Examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various objections/rejections seen below in order to expediate prosecution of the instant application.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1 (last clause), in the recitation of “the grommet holds a part of the ventilation duct is fitted to a floor panel of the vehicle body” it is unclear whether the grommet or the ventilation duct is fitted to the floor panel. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “the grommet holds a part of the ventilation duct, and the grommet is fitted to a floor panel of the vehicle body” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Claims 4-5 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanizawa (WO 2022/014705), in view of Fujikawa (US 2019/0113164). See translation provided to Applicant with the Office Action mailed August 15th, 2025.
Regarding Claim 1, Tanizawa teaches a vehicle (Fig. 1, “vehicle” 10) including an in-vehicle device (Figs. 2-3, “battery pack” 24) including a housing (“lower cover” 48 and “upper cover” 50) having an inside to which cooling air is supplied ([0018] – “As shown in FIG. 10, the blower fan 40 is disposed directly above the heat dissipation fins 3204, and draws in and exhausts air to form a flow path for cooling air that flows through the 48V battery 30 and the DC/DC converter 32 in that order”), the in-vehicle device (24) being supported by a vehicle body (“side member” 34, “seat cross member” 36, “rear floor pan” 20 and “tire well” 22), the vehicle (10) comprising:
a ventilation duct (“intake pipe” 56) held by the housing (48, 50) and by an interior component (“interior panel” 58), the ventilation duct (56) communicating the inside of the housing (48, 50) of the in-vehicle device (24) with an opening (“opening” 5804) in the interior component (58), and
the ventilation duct (56) is located above a floor panel (20).
Tanizawa does not teach “a grommet having an elastic body made of rubber or resin, wherein the grommet holds a part of the ventilation duct is fitted to a floor panel of the vehicle body, and holds up the ventilation duct above the floor panel”.
Fujikawa teaches a grommet (Figs. 2-3, “grommet” 50) having an elastic body made of rubber or resin ([0008] – “a grommet made of a resin or a rubber”),
wherein the grommet (50) holds a part of a ventilation duct (“pipe unit” 18) is fitted to a panel (“fixation member” 30; [0031] – “The air cleaner 40 is fixed at a lower end or the like to a vehicle body forming member which forms the vehicle body, or a fixation member fixed to the vehicle body forming member”), and holds the ventilation duct (18) in an upright position (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to hold the ventilation duct to the floor panel taught by Tanizawa with the grommet taught by Fujikawa, such that “a grommet having an elastic body made of rubber or resin, wherein the grommet holds a part of the ventilation duct is fitted to a floor panel of the vehicle body, and holds up the ventilation duct above the floor panel”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of preventing separation of the ventilation duct from the housing of the in-vehicle device taught by Tanizawa.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanizawa (WO 2022/014705), in view of Fujikawa (US 2019/0113164), and in view of Park (KR 10-0328996). See translations provided to Applicant with the Office Action mailed August 15th, 2025.
Regarding Claim 4, Tanizawa and Fujikawa teach the vehicle according to claim 1, Tanizawa teaches wherein one end (Fig. 2, “end” 5602) of the ventilation duct (56) is fitted to the housing (48, 50) of the in-vehicle device (24), and another end (“other end” 5604) of the ventilation duct (56) is fitted against the interior component (58).
Tanizawa or Fujikawa do not teach “another end of the ventilation duct is pressed against the interior component via an elastic seal member”.
Park teaches an end of a ventilation duct (Fig. 3, “air duct” 1) is pressed against an interior component (“vent grill” 7) via an elastic seal member (“connector ring” 5; “connector ring 5 is formed of an elastic material having a certain elasticity”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure the ventilation duct and the interior component taught by Tanizawa with the elastic seal member taught by Park, such that “another end of the ventilation duct is pressed against the interior component via an elastic seal member”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of preventing the ventilation duct from detaching from the interior component taught by Tanizawa.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanizawa (WO 2022/014705), in view of Fujikawa (US 2019/0113164), and in view of Tanaka (US 10,000,138).
Regarding Claim 5, Tanizawa and Fujikawa teach the vehicle according to claim 1, Tanizawa teaches further comprising:
a front row seat (not shown; see [0010] below);
a rear row seat (Figs. 5, 8 “third-row of seats” 26) that is disposed behind the front row seat (not shown; see [0010]);
an electric motor (Fig. 1, “belt-type starter generator” BSG) configured to output a driving force to a driving wheel (see Fig. 1; [0008] – “The BSG is capable of regenerative driving and power driving depending on the operating state of the engine, and when in regenerative driving mode, the generated 48V DC voltage is supplied via an inverter (not shown) to a 48V battery, which serves as the battery of the present disclosure described below, for charging. Furthermore, when the vehicle is powered, the BSG receives voltage from the 48V battery to start the engine and also functions as an auxiliary power source that assists the engine output when the vehicle is traveling”);
and a battery (“48V battery” 30) configured to supply electric power to the electric motor (BSG),
wherein: the in-vehicle device (24) is a charging device (24) configured to charge the battery (30) with electric power, and is disposed below the rear seat (26; [0010] – “In this embodiment, the present disclosure will be described as being applied to a vehicle 10 having a third row of seats 26, but the present disclosure can of course also be applied to vehicles having two rows of seats, front seats and rear seats”); and
the interior component (58) partitions a space between the ventilation duct (56) and a vehicle cabin (see Fig. 2).
Tanizawa or Fujikawa do not teach “wherein: the in-vehicle device is a charging device configured to charge the battery with electric power from an external power supply”. In other words, Tanizawa does explicitly disclose an external charging capability.
Tanizawa or Fujikawa do not teach “wherein: the in-vehicle device is a charging device configured to charge the battery with electric power from an external power supply”. In other words, Tanizawa does not teach an external power supply.
Tanaka teaches a charging device (Figs. 1-2, “battery pack” 110) to be used to charge a battery (“high voltage battery” 111) with electric power from an external power supply (“external charge device” 3; col. 4, line 21 – “The high voltage battery 111 can be charged by using the electricity supplied from the external charge device 3, at the time of parking of the vehicle 1”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the charging device taught by Tanizawa for external charging as suggested by Tanaka, such that “wherein: the in-vehicle device is a charging device configured to charge the battery with electric power from an external power supply”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of being able to charge the vehicle taught by Tanizawa while parked.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed October 1st, 2025 are in response to the Office Action mailed August 15th, 2025. The Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant’s argument that “The cited references, Tanizawa and Fujikawa, fail to teach or suggest the above specific features. Tanizawa discloses a ventilation duct connected to a battery housing but fails to mention any elastic duct fixing member or grommet, much less one that holds up the duct above the floor panel in this manner. Fujikawa discloses a grommet made of an elastic body (rubber or resin), but it is not fitted to a floor panel, nor is it disclosed as holding up a ventilation duct above a floor panel” (p. 5) is not persuasive. Tanizawa clearly teaches a ventilation duct (Fig. 2, 56) located above a floor panel (20; [0023] – “the other end 5604 of the intake pipe 56 is fitted into an opening 5804 provided in a portion of the interior panel 58 that is above the rear floor pan 20” emphasis added) and Fujikawa clearly teaches an elastic grommet (Fig. 2, 50) holding a ventilation duct (18) to a panel (30) in an upright position (see Figs. 2-3). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). For these reasons, Examiner still believes it would have been obvious to hold the ventilation duct to the floor panel taught by Tanizawa with the grommet taught by Fujikawa.
In conclusion, amended claim 1 and 4-5 are rejected. See detailed and relevant rejections set forth above.
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 James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655