8DETAILED 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 10 ends in a period. The examiner believes line 10 should end in a comma.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“fastening element” in claims 8-9, 12 and 15. The specification further defines the “fastening element” as “The fastening element can be formed integrally i.e. from the same piece of material with the wall of the air conduit tube. The respective fastening element can be connectable to a complementary fastening of the heat exchanger in a force-fitting and/or form-fitting manner” (specification page 4) and further in the drawings is indicated by reference numeral 8 and clearly shown as latch to be inserted snap fit into a complementary shaped receiver 9 (see Figs. 6-7)
“fastening unit” in claims 8-9, 12 and 15. The specification defines the fastening unit as a broader term for all of the fastening elements (page 7 of the specification “a fastening unit 7 with several -here four- fastening elements 8” )
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 4, 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bui (US 20160131020 A1) (cited in the IDS filed on 11/27/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Bui teaches of:
Air conduit tube for a battery electric vehicle (Fig. 1, 10),
- wherein the air conduit tube comprises an air inlet (Fig. 6, 10 has a lower portion 12 with inlet defined by 13) for introducing air (the inlet receives air; ¶ [0022], “an air guide 10”) and an air outlet for fixing to an inlet of a heat exchanger (Figs. 2 and 6, the portion of 10 connected to heat exchanger 5 is the outlet),
- wherein the air conduit tube is outwardly delimited by a wall fluidically interconnecting the air inlet and the air outlet (¶ [0022], “an air guide 10 is formed by a main casing which is completely open toward the open position and delimited by a substantially rectangular frame which is formed by two lateral walls 22, a lower wall 21 and an upper wall 29”),
- wherein the air conduit tube contains at least one weak spot (Fig. 6, 23),
- wherein the respective weak spot is configured such that, when a collision force directed in an air inflow direction acts on the air inlet, the air conduit tube primarily deforms at the weak spot (¶ [0034], “FIG. 6 also shows the folds or steps 23 for telescopic action by means of articulation or breakage, formed in all or a portion of the lateral walls 22 (at least in the region of the base of the lower casing 12) and lower wall 21.”),
- wherein the wall of the air conduit tube is formed, at least at the air inlet, by four wall sections which face each other in pairs (Fig. 6, four wall sections. 21, 29 and 22 on the two vertical sides, 21 and 29 face each other and 22 on both vertical sides face each other), so that the air inlet has a rounded rectangular cross section transversely to the air inflow direction (the cross section of 10 is a rounded rectangle, see Fig. 3 showing the rounded connection between 21 and 23), and
- wherein the weak spot extends over at least one wall section and at most over three mutually adjacent wall sections (Fig. 6, 23 extends over three mutually adjacent wall sections 21 and 22).
Regarding claim 2, Bui teaches of the air conduit tube according to claim 1, and Bui further teaches of:
wherein the at least one weak spot is formed in the wall of the air conduit tube (Fig. 6, 23 is formed in the walls 21 and 22 of 10)
Regarding claim 4, Bui teaches of the air conduit tube according to claim 2, and Bui further teaches of:
wherein
- the at least one weak spot is elongated and is arranged adjacent to and spaced from the air inlet (Fig. 6, see multiple lines 23 representing the elongated and spaced weak spots from air inlet defined by 13 in 12), and
- the at least one weak spot aligns parallel to an edge of the wall enclosing the air inlet (23 is clearly parallel to 13 which defines the edge of the wall enclosing the inlet).
Regarding claim 7, Bui teaches of the air conduit tube according to claim 4, and Bui further teaches of:
wherein
- the at least one weak spot encloses the air inlet at its circumference by more than 25% (Fig. 6, 23 extends along the entire length of wall 21 and partially onto 22 which would be over 25% of the circumference of the air inlet), and/or
- the air conduit tube contains more than one weak spot, wherein the respective weak spots enclose the air inlet at its circumference by more than 75%.
Regarding claim 11, Bui teaches of the air conduit tube according to claim 3, and Bui further teaches of:
wherein
- the at least one weak spot is elongated and is arranged adjacent to and spaced from the air inlet (Fig. 6, 23 is elongated and spaced from the air inlet defined by 13 in 12), and
- the at least one weak spot aligns parallel to an edge of the wall enclosing the air inlet (23 is clearly shown to be parallel to the edge 13).
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) 3, 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bui (US 20160131020 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Bui teaches of the air conduit tube of claim 2, however, Bui fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one weak spot is formed by a reduced, by 30% to 50%, thickness of the wall.
Bui in a further embodiment teaches:
wherein the at least one weak spot is formed by a reduced, by 30% to 50% (Bui forms the weak spot 30 by a reduced thickness of 25% to 75%; ¶ [0035], “The wall 22 has, for example, a thickness of 2 mm whilst the membranes have a thickness between 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm”, thickness of the wall (Fig. 7, weak spots 30 are shown with a reduced thickness compared to wall 22)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify 23 of the first embodiment of Bui to have a reduced thickness as shown in Fig. 7 and further reduce the thickness by 30% to 50% the thickness of the wall
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” (MPEP 2144.05.I). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Bui teaches of the air conduit tube according to claim 4, however Bui fails to explicitly teach:
wherein
- the air conduit tube comprises at least two reinforcing ribs on the wall which are spaced from one another and are aligned parallel to an edge of the wall enclosing the air inlet, and
- the weak spot is arranged between the two adjacent reinforcing ribs.
A further embodiment of Bui teaches of:
wherein
- the air conduit tube comprises at least two reinforcing ribs on the wall (Fig. 7, 22a and 22b) which are spaced from one another and are aligned parallel to an edge of the wall enclosing the air inlet (22a and b would be parallel to 23 which is parallel to the edge of the wall and therefore 22a and ab would be parallel to the wall), and
- the weak spot is arranged between the two adjacent reinforcing ribs (Fig. 7, 30 is between 22a and 22b).
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
Replace 23 of Fig. 6 with 23 of Fig. 7
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
It creates a stepped shape with the weak spots and ribs, ensuring that when the weak spots deform due to stress they telescopically collapse into one another, creating a cleaner crumple zone that deforms in a predictable way
Regarding claim 14, Bui teaches of:
Air conduit tube for a battery electric vehicle (Fig. 1, 10),
- wherein the air conduit tube comprises an air inlet (Fig. 6, 10 has a lower portion 12 with inlet defined by 13) (the inlet receives air; ¶ [0022], “an air guide 10”) and an air outlet for fixing to an inlet of a heat exchanger (Figs. 2 and 6, the portion of 10 connected to heat exchanger 5 is the outlet),
- wherein the air conduit tube is outwardly delimited by a wall fluidically interconnecting the air inlet and the air outlet (¶ [0022], “an air guide 10 is formed by a main casing which is completely open toward the open position and delimited by a substantially rectangular frame which is formed by two lateral walls 22, a lower wall 21 and an upper wall 29”),
- wherein the air conduit tube contains at least one weak spot (Fig. 6, 23),
- wherein the respective weak spot is configured such that, when a collision force directed in an air inflow direction acts on the air inlet, the air conduit tube primarily deforms at the weak spot (¶ [0034], “FIG. 6 also shows the folds or steps 23 for telescopic action by means of articulation or breakage, formed in all or a portion of the lateral walls 22 (at least in the region of the base of the lower casing 12) and lower wall 21.”),
- wherein the at least one weak spot is formed in the wall of the air conduit tube (Fig. 6, 23 is formed in the walls 21 and 22 of 10),
- the at least one weak spot is elongated and is arranged adjacent to and spaced from the air inlet (Fig. 6, see multiple lines 23 representing the elongated and spaced weak spots from air inlet defined by 13 in 12), and
- the at least one weak spot aligns parallel to an edge of the wall enclosing the air inlet (23 is clearly parallel to 13 which defines the edge of the wall enclosing the inlet),
Bui fails to explicitly teach:
- the air conduit tube comprises at least two reinforcing ribs on the wall which are spaced from one another and are aligned parallel to an edge of the wall enclosing the air inlet
- the weak spot is arranged between the two adjacent reinforcing ribs
A further embodiment of Bui teaches of:
- the air conduit tube comprises at least two reinforcing ribs on the wall (Fig. 7, 22a and 22b) which are spaced from one another and are aligned parallel to an edge of the wall enclosing the air inlet (22a and b would be parallel to 23 which is parallel to the edge of the wall and therefore 22a and ab would be parallel to the wall), and
- the weak spot is arranged between the two adjacent reinforcing ribs (Fig. 7, 30 is between 22a and 22b).
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
Replace 23 of Fig. 6 with 23 of Fig. 7
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
It creates a stepped shape with the weak spots and ribs, ensuring that when the weak spots deform due to stress they telescopically collapse into one another, creating a cleaner crumple zone that deforms in a predictable way
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bui (US 20160131020 A1) in view of Schmidt (US 20160052559 A1) (cited in the Non-Final Rejection of 02/10/2026).
Regarding claim 10, Bui teaches of:
Arrangement for a battery electric vehicle (the air conduit tube of Bui is capable of use with a battery electric vehicle),
- wherein the arrangement comprises an air conduit tube (Fig. 1, 10) with an air inlet (Fig. 6, 10 has a lower portion 12 with inlet defined by 13) and an air outlet (Figs. 2 and 6, the portion of 10 connected to heat exchanger 5 is the outlet), and a heat exchanger (Fig. 2, 5),
- wherein the heat exchanger is attached with its inlet to the air outlet of the air conduit tube (Fig. 2, the inlet side of 5 is attached to the air outlet of 10)
wherein the air conduit tube is formed according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1)
Bui fails to explicitly teach:
in a fluid-tight manner to the outside
Schmidt teaches of:
in a fluid-tight manner to the outside (¶ [0017], “The attachment elements can further serve for sealing the opening in the vehicle body outer component or in the front-end module so that the air from the outside can only reach the cooling module via the air guide”)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify the connection of the air conduit tube 10 and the heat exchanger 5 so that the connection is fluid-tight
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would ensure that all air entering the conduit would be conveyed to the heat exchanger 5
Claim(s) 8-9, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bui (US 20160131020 A1) and in further view of Ito (US 20070107677 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Bui teaches of the air conduit tube of claim 1, and Bui further teaches of:
wherein
- the air conduit tube comprises a fastening unit (Fig. 6, 17) for fixing the heat exchanger (¶ [0026], “The air guide 10 is fixed to the radiator 5, 6 by means of resilient lugs 17”),
- the fastening unit is formed on the wall adjacent to the air outlet (17 is formed on walls 22 adjacent to the air outlet positioned at the inlet of the heat exchanger 5) and comprises at least one fastening element projecting from the wall (there are four fastening element 17 projecting from the walls 22), and
- the at least one weak spot is formed adjacent to the respective fastening element (23 are adjacent to 17)
Bui fails to explicitly teach:
The at least one weak spot surrounds the respective fastening element in regions facing away from the air outlet.
Ito teaches of:
The at least one weak spot surrounds the respective fastening element in regions facing away from the air outlet (Fig. 4, 10 is a fastening unit with a weak spot 11 that extends along the length of 10 and surrounds it in a region facing away from the air outlet which is in the RW direction)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
Add a weak spot onto each of the fastening elements 17 at their connection point with wall 22
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
It would allow for the fasteners 17 to deform instead of the force being transferred to the radiator in the event of a crash, protecting the radiator
Regarding claim 9, Bui teaches of the air conduit tube of claim 1, and Bui further teaches of:
wherein
- the air conduit tube comprises a fastening unit (Fig. 6, 17) (¶ [0026], “The air guide 10 is fixed to the radiator 5, 6 by means of resilient lugs 17”),
- the fastening unit is formed on the wall adjacent to the air outlet (17 is formed on walls 22 adjacent to the air outlet positioned at the inlet of the heat exchanger 5) and comprises at least one fastening element projecting from the wall (there are four fastening element 17 projecting from the walls 22)
Bui fails to explicitly teach:
- the at least one weak spot is a notch formed in the fastening element facing away from the air outlet.
Ito teaches of:
- the at least one weak spot is a notch formed in the fastening element facing away from the air outlet (Fig. 4, 11 is a notch formed in the fastening element 10 facing away from the air outlet in the direction of RW)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
Add a weak spot onto each of the fastening elements 17 at their connection point with wall 22
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
It would allow for the fasteners 17 to deform instead of the force being transferred to the radiator in the event of a crash, protecting the radiator
Regarding claim 12, Bui teaches of the air conduit tube according to claim 3, and Bui further teaches of:
wherein
- the air conduit tube comprises a fastening unit (Fig. 6, 17) (¶ [0026], “The air guide 10 is fixed to the radiator 5, 6 by means of resilient lugs 17”),
- the fastening unit is formed on the wall adjacent to the air outlet (17 is formed on walls 22 adjacent to the air outlet positioned at the inlet of the heat exchanger 5) and comprises at least one fastening element projecting from the wall (there are four fastening element 17 projecting from the walls 22)
Bui fails to explicitly teach:
- the at least one weak spot is a notch formed in the fastening element facing away from the air outlet.
Ito teaches of:
- the at least one weak spot is a notch formed in the fastening element facing away from the air outlet (Fig. 4, 11 is a notch formed in the fastening element 10 facing away from the air outlet in the direction of RW)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
Add a weak spot onto each of the fastening elements 17 at their connection point with wall 22
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
It would allow for the fasteners 17 to deform instead of the force being transferred to the radiator in the event of a crash, protecting the radiator
Regarding claim 15, Bui teaches of:
Air conduit tube for a battery electric vehicle (Fig. 1, 10),
- wherein the air conduit tube comprises an air inlet (Fig. 6, 10 has a lower portion 12 with inlet defined by 13) (the inlet receives air; ¶ [0022], “an air guide 10”) and an air outlet for fixing to an inlet of a heat exchanger (Figs. 2 and 6, the portion of 10 connected to heat exchanger 5 is the outlet),
- wherein the air conduit tube is outwardly delimited by a wall fluidically interconnecting the air inlet and the air outlet (¶ [0022], “an air guide 10 is formed by a main casing which is completely open toward the open position and delimited by a substantially rectangular frame which is formed by two lateral walls 22, a lower wall 21 and an upper wall 29”),
- wherein the air conduit tube contains at least one weak spot (Fig. 6, 23),
- wherein the respective weak spot is configured such that, when a collision force directed in an air inflow direction acts on the air inlet, the air conduit tube primarily deforms at the weak spot (¶ [0034], “FIG. 6 also shows the folds or steps 23 for telescopic action by means of articulation or breakage, formed in all or a portion of the lateral walls 22 (at least in the region of the base of the lower casing 12) and lower wall 21.”),
- wherein the air conduit tube comprises a fastening unit for fixing the heat exchanger (Fig. 6, 17; ¶ [0026], “The air guide 10 is fixed to the radiator 5, 6 by means of resilient lugs 17”),
- wherein the fastening unit is formed on the wall adjacent to the air outlet and comprises at least one fastening element projecting from the wall (17 are formed on the walls 22 and project from 22), and
- the fastening unit is formed on the wall adjacent to the air outlet (17 is formed on walls 22 adjacent to the air outlet positioned at the inlet of the heat exchanger 5) and comprises at least one fastening element projecting from the wall (there are four fastening element 17 projecting from the walls 22)
Bui fails to explicitly teach:
- the at least one weak spot is a notch formed in the fastening element facing away from the air outlet.
Ito teaches of:
- the at least one weak spot is a notch formed in the fastening element facing away from the air outlet (Fig. 4, 11 is a notch formed in the fastening element 10 facing away from the air outlet in the direction of RW)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
Add a weak spot onto each of the fastening elements 17 at their connection point with wall 22
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
It would allow for the fasteners 17 to deform instead of the force being transferred to the radiator in the event of a crash, protecting the radiator
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J GIORDANO whose telephone number is (571)272-8940. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fr 8 AM - 5 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/MICHAEL JAMES GIORDANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights