DETAILED ACTION
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 Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 09/27/2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Claim 16, line 2, “said hole” should read “said hose”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 5-8, 12-15, 17-18 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Number 6,314,949 B1 to DeGrazia.
A) As per Claims 1 & 12, DeGrazia teaches an apparatus (DeGrazia: Figure 2) comprising:
a vehicle having an air conditioning system adapted to supply conditioned air to a passenger compartment of the vehicle, the air conditioning system having a fan motor (DeGrazia: Figure 2, Item 25 & 27 and the ductwork (DeGrazia: Figure 2, Item 30), the ductwork extending from the fan motor to vents in the passenger compartment of said vehicle, said vehicle having an engine with an air intake manifold, the air intake manifold adapted to supply air to the engine of said vehicle (DeGrazia: Figure 2, Item 15); and
a hose (DeGrazia: Figure 2, Item 30 from Item 20 down to Item 15) communicating with the air conditioning system of said vehicle and extending through an interior of said vehicle so as to communicate with the air intake manifold.
B) As per Claims 2 & 17, DeGrazia teaches a valve (DeGrazia: Figure 2, Item 40; Col. 3, lines 38-50) positioned in said hose or connected to said hose so as to cause a unidirectional flow of the conditioned air from said AC system to said air intake manifold.
C) As per Claims 3 & 18, DeGrazia teaches that said valve being a butterfly valve positioned in line of said hose (DeGrazia: Figure 2, Item 40; Col. 3, lines 38-50).
D) As per Claims 5 & 20, DeGrazia teaches that said hose comprising: a first hose connecting said valve with said air intake manifold; and a second hose connecting said valve with said air conditioning system (DeGrazia: Figure 2, Item 40; Col. 3, lines 38-50; part of Item 30 from HVAC to Item 40 and Part of Item 30 from Item 40 to Item 15).
E) As per Claims 6 & 15, DeGrazia teaches that the fan motor of said air conditioning system has an opening formed therein, said hose having one end secured in the opening of the fan motor so as to open to an interior of the fan motor (DeGrazia: Figure 2, Item 20).
F) As per Claim 7, DeGrazia teaches that said hose opens to the ductwork of said air conditioning system (DeGrazia: connection from one Item 30 down to Item 15 to another portion of ductwork system Item 30 in Figure 2).
G) As per Claims 8 & 14, DeGrazia teaches that said air intake manifold having an opening formed in a wall thereof, said hose extending into the opening of said air intake manifold (DeGrazia: Figure 2, Item 15).
H) As per Claim 13, DeGrazia teaches that said hose passing a portion of the conditioned air from the air conditioning system to the air intake manifold (DeGrazia: Figure 2, Item 15).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeGrazia in view of US Patent Publication Number 2012/0167860 A1 to Wong.
A) As per Claim 10, DeGrazia teaches all the limitations except that the opening of said air intake manifold has a sealant applied thereto so as to form an air-tight seal between said air intake manifold and said hose.
However, Wong teaches a sealant to form an air-tight seal for an intake system (Wong: Paragraph 0016).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of DeGrazia by having sealant in the system, as taught by Wong, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified DeGrazia with these aforementioned teachings of Wong with the motivation of preventing air leaks within the system.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeGrazia in view of US Patent Number 10,279,645 B1 to Nazarian.
A) As per Claim 11, DeGrazia teaches all the limitations except that said hose is a flex hose formed of a polymeric material.
However, Nazarian teaches a hose is a flex hose formed of a polymeric material (Nazarian: Figure 1, Item 110).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of DeGrazia by having the hose be a flexible polymeric material, as taught by Nazarian, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified DeGrazia with these aforementioned teachings of Nazarian with the motivation of making installation and maintenance easier.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9, 16 & 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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, STEVE MCALLISTER can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762