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 1-8 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 12/07/2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Number 9,849,754 B2 to Kim.
A) As per Claim 1, Kim teaches an air extractor grille duct (Kim: Figure 10), the grille duct comprising:
an air extractor grille (Kim: Figure 10, Item 60 with Items 70) configured to be selectively opened due to a pressure difference between an interior and an exterior of a vehicle so that interior air of the vehicle is discharged;
a duct housing connected to the air extractor grille and configured to provide a discharge path for the interior air (Kim: Figure 10, Item 50); and
a sound-absorbing cover (Kim: Figure 10, Item 90) connected to the duct housing, provided with an inclined surface (Kim: Figure 10, Items 91), and configured to guide discharged interior air to flow along the inclined surface toward the discharge path.
B) As per Claim 2, Kim teaches that the air extractor grille is provided with a plurality of flap members arranged in a vertical direction and configured to allow the plurality of flap members to be maintained in a blocking state by their own weight and to be opened as a pressure difference occurs (Kim: Figure 10, Item 70).
C) As per Claim 3, Kim teaches that the duct housing is mounted on a lower part of a side outer panel and is provided to be exposed to the exterior together with the air extractor grille (Kim: Figures 9-10, Items 50-60 are exposed to outside).
D) As per Claim 4, Kim teaches that the duct housing is provided with a mounting area with a shape that corresponds to a shape of the side outer panel and is positioned in contact with the side outer panel through the mounting area (Kim: Figure 9-10, Item 50 has shape corresponding to hole in unlabeled out panel of the vehicle).
Claim(s) 1 & 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Number 7,137,880 B2 to Omiya.
A) As per Claim 1, Omiya teaches an air extractor grille duct (Omiya: Figures 8-9), the grille duct comprising:
an air extractor grille (Omiya: Figures 8-9, Items 201a-201b with flaps 21a & 21b) configured to be selectively opened due to a pressure difference between an interior and an exterior of a vehicle so that interior air of the vehicle is discharged;
a duct housing (Omiya: Figure 9, Item 2) connected to the air extractor grille and configured to provide a discharge path for the interior air; and
a sound-absorbing cover (Omiya: Figure 9, Item 3) connected to the duct housing, provided with an inclined surface (Omiya: Figure 9, Items 306), and configured to guide discharged interior air to flow along the inclined surface toward the discharge path.
B) As per Claim 6, Omiya teaches that the sound-absorbing cover comprises: a main body (Omiya: Figure 9, Item 300 with Items 306) mounted on an upper part of a side outer panel to face the duct housing and including the inclined surface provided to slope downward with respect to a center part; and mounting members (Omiya: top and bottom walls in Figures 8-9 or Item 3) extending from a lower part of the main body and allowing an air flow area to be provided therein.
C) As per Claim 7, Omiya teaches that the main body is mounted upright above the upper part of the side outer panel by the mounting members and in a direction opposite to a direction in which the interior air is discharged (Omiya: best shown in Figure 9).
D) As per Claim 8, Omiya teaches that the main body is provided with a sound-absorbing pad coupled to an inside of the inclined surface and wherein the sound-absorbing pad is configured to block a noise introduced through an opening of the air extractor grille from entering a cabin of the vehicle (Omiya: Col. 13, lines 31-45).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US Patent Number 2,849,941 to Negoro.
A) As per Claim 5, Kim teaches all the limitations except that, in a state where the mounting area is positioned in contact with the side outer panel, the duct housing is provided with a fastening member that penetrates through and fastens to both the mounting area and the side outer panel.
However, Negoro teaches, in a state where the mounting area is positioned in contact with the side outer panel, the duct housing is provided with a fastening member that penetrates through and fastens to both the mounting area and the side outer panel (Negoro: Figure 2, Item 17).
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 Kim by fastening with through screws, as taught by Negoro, 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 Kim with these aforementioned teachings of Negoro since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the fastening system of Negoro for the fastening system of Kim.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
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