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 .
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 3 and 11-12 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 11-12 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 3.
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 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roussel (US 20170246949 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Roussel teaches of:
Air conduit tube for a battery electric vehicle,
wherein the air conduit tube comprises an air inlet for introducing air and an air outlet for fixing to an inlet of a heat exchanger (Fig. 1, air conduit tube 1 has an inlet at the front of the vehicle 3 and outlet connected to heat exchanger 5),
wherein the air conduit tube is outwardly delimited by a wall fluidically interconnecting the air inlet and the air outlet (Figs. 1-2, air guide 1 has four walls connecting the inlet and outlet), wherein the air conduit tube contains at least one weak spot (Fig. 1-3, 1 has weak spots 6 formed in the walls), wherein the respective weak spot is configured such that, when a collision force (F) directed in an air inflow direction (SR) acts on the air inlet, the air conduit tube primarily deforms at the weak spot (¶ [0037], According to the invention, the channel (3) comprises mechanical weakness areas (6), defining permanent shape-changing areas capable, along the longitudinal axis (X-axis) of the vehicle, of shortening the air guide (1) when these mechanical weakness areas change shape in case of impact (CH) on the air guide in particular. The longitudinal axis of the channel (3) is an axis lying in the sagittal plane (PS) of the channel (3)).
Regarding claim 2, Roussel teaches of the air conduit according to claim 1, and Roussel further teaches of:
Wherein the at least one weak spot is formed in the wall of the air conduit tube (Fig. 2a, the weak spot shown as the portion of reduced thickness is formed in the two parallel walls)
Regarding claim 4, Roussel teaches of the air conduit according to claim 2, and Roussel further teaches of:
Wherein the at least one weak spot is elongated and is arranged adjacent to and spaced from the air inlet and the at least one weak spot aligns parallel to an edge of the wall enclosing the air inlet (Figs. 1 and 5, the top portion of the weak spot 6 is aligned with the top edge of the wall enclosing the air inlet)
Regarding claim 7, Roussel teaches of the air conduit according to claim 4, and Roussel further teaches of:
Wherein the at least one weak spot encloses the air inlet at its circumference by more than 25%, and/or
the air conduit tube contain more than one weak spot wherein the respective weak spots enclose the air inlet at its circumference by more than 75% (Fig. 1, see each of the line representing the weak spots 6 which enclose the air inlet around its entire circumference as the cross-section increases towards 5, therefore surrounding by 100%)
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 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roussel (US 20170246949 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Roussel teaches of the air conduit according to claim 2, and Roussel further teaches of:
Wherein the at least one weak spot is formed by a reduced thickness of the wall (¶ [0018], The mechanical weakness areas may comprise changes of thickness or of material. For example, walls forming the channel may have a given general thickness, and the mechanical weakness areas may in this case have areas thinner than the general thickness, said thinner areas forming permanent shape-changing lines.)
Roussel fails to explicitly teach:
Preferably by 30% to 50%
However, it would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Roussel to meet the above limitation based upon the following rationale:
It has been found 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Roussel would not operate differently with the claimed reduction in thickness as the weak spots are intended to break under force in the inlet direction. Further, applicant places no criticality on the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, Roussel as modified teaches of the air conduit tube according to claim 3, and Roussel as modified further teaches of:
wherein -the at least one weak spot is elongated and is arranged adjacent to and spaced from the air inlet, and-the at least one weak spot aligns parallel to an edge of the wall enclosing the air inlet (Figs. 1 and 5, the top portion of the weak spot 6 is aligned with the edge of the wall enclosing the air inlet)
Claim(s) 8, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roussel (US 20170246949 A1) in view of Schmidt (US 20160052559 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Roussel teaches of the air conduit according to claim 2, however, Roussel fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the air conduit tube comprises a fastening unit for fixing the heat exchanger, the fastening unit is formed on the wall adjacent to the air outlet and comprises at least one fastening element projecting from the wall, and
the at least one weak spot is formed adjacent to the respective fastening element and surrounds the respective fastening element in regions facing away from the air outlet.
Schmidt teaches of:
wherein the air conduit tube comprises a fastening unit for fixing the heat exchanger, the fastening unit is formed on the wall adjacent to the air outlet and comprises at least one fastening element projecting from the wall (Figs. 3a-3b, 24.1 is a fastening unit that extends from the walls of the air conduit 20 and fastens the outlet end to the heat exchanger 12), and
the at least one weak spot is formed adjacent to the respective fastening element and surrounds the respective fastening element in regions facing away from the air outlet (See combination made below)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add fastening elements 24.1 to the outlet end of the air conduit of Roussel so that it can fasten securely to the heat exchanger 5 and so the region of the fastener facing away from the outlet is surrounded by the closest weak spot 3
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:
having fasteners allows for the air conduit to remain connected to the heat exchanger in the event of the impact, thus protecting the heat exchanger while the air conduit compresses (Schmidt, ¶ [0044], The attachment elements 24 can likewise contribute to keeping a stable form of the air guide 10 in the mounting state I. Further the attachment elements 24 can help for grabbing during stretching of the material 30 in order to facilitate the mounting of the air guide 10)
Regarding claim 10, Roussel teaches of the air conduit according to claim 1, and Roussel further teaches of:
Arrangements for a battery electric vehicle, wherein the arrangement comprises an air conduit tube with an air inlet and an air outlet and a heat exchanger (See rejection of claim 1)
Wherein the heat exchanger is attached with its inlet to the air outlet of the air conduit tube, wherein the air conduit tube is formed according to claim 1 (Figs. 1 and 5, see rejection of claim 1)
Roussel fails to explicitly teach:
in a fluid-tight manner to the outside
Schmidt teaches of:
in a fluid-tight manner to the outside (¶ [0044], The attachment elements 24 can further act sealingly in order to avoid that dirt ends up in the engine compartment)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add attachment elements 24 to the outlet end of the air conduit of Roussel so as to attach the outlet end of Roussel to the heat exchanger 5 in a fluid tight manner
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 prevent dirt from entering the heat exchanger (Schmidt, ¶ [0044], The attachment elements 24 can further act sealingly in order to avoid that dirt ends up in the engine compartment)
Regarding claim 12, Roussel as modified teachings of the air conduit according to claim 3, however, Roussel as modified fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the air conduit tube comprises a fastening unit for fixing the heat exchanger, the fastening unit is formed on the wall adjacent to the air outlet and comprises at least one fastening element projecting from the wall, and
the at least one weak spot is formed adjacent to the respective fastening element and surrounds the respective fastening element in regions facing away from the air outlet.
Schmidt teaches of:
wherein the air conduit tube comprises a fastening unit for fixing the heat exchanger, the fastening unit is formed on the wall adjacent to the air outlet and comprises at least one fastening element projecting from the wall (Figs. 3a-3b, 24.1 is a fastening unit that extends from the walls of the air conduit 20 and fastens the outlet end to the heat exchanger 12), and
the at least one weak spot is formed adjacent to the respective fastening element and surrounds the respective fastening element in regions facing away from the air outlet (See combination made below)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add fastening elements 24.1 to the outlet end of the air conduit of Roussel so that it can fasten securely to the heat exchanger 5 and so the region of the fastener facing away from the outlet is surrounded by the closest weak spot 3
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:
having fasteners allows for the air conduit to remain connected to the heat exchanger in the event of the impact, thus protecting the heat exchanger while the air conduit compresses (Schmidt, ¶ [0044], The attachment elements 24 can likewise contribute to keeping a stable form of the air guide 10 in the mounting state I. Further the attachment elements 24 can help for grabbing during stretching of the material 30 in order to facilitate the mounting of the air guide 10)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 9 and 13 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.
Regarding claim 5:
Claim 5 recites that the weak spot is arranged between two parallel ribs. This is not taught in any known prior art. There are known references that teach of ribs in conjunction with weak spots (See US 20200010039 A1), however, no such references teaches of the weak spots being aligned parallel with the edge of the wall enclosing the air inlet and the ribs also being aligned parallel with said edge and also being positioned such that the weak spot is between each rib. Therefore claim 5 is objected to as there is no known prior art rejection for the claim.
Regarding claim 6:
Claim 6 recites that the weak spots extends over at least one wall and at most three. All known prior art that teaches of a weak spot that is parallel to the edge of the wall enclosing the inlet, see Roussel cited above, teach of the weak spots either extending around all four walls or does not teach of a rounded rectangular cross section. Therefore claim 6 is objected to as there is no known prior art rejection for the claim.
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 recites that the air conduit has a fastener formed on and extending from a wall and that further the fastener has a notch formed on it facing away from the air outlet. No known references teach of a notch formed in the rear side of a fastener that fastens an air conduit to a heat exchanger. Therefore claim 9 is objected to as there is no known prior art rejection for the claim.
Claim 13 is objected to as it depends from objected claim 5.
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, 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.
/MICHAEL JAMES GIORDANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762