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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “comprises”, “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scheib (US 2004/0262954).
Regarding claim 1, Scheib discloses a system comprising: a cross-car beam (13); a cross-car beam structure (Fig. 3) attached to the cross-car beam; an air duct (12); and an air vent (42), wherein the cross-car beam and the cross-car beam structure form a channel for air flow between the air duct and the air vent (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Scheib discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the air vent is configured for an outboard position in a dashboard of a vehicle (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Scheib discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the channel forms an open space that abuts at least the cross-car beam (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Scheib discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the cross-car beam structure is attached to the cross-car beam by being overmolded onto the cross-car beam (paragraph 0096).
Regarding claim 5, Scheib discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the channel includes ribs (96) formed by the cross-car beam structure, the ribs positioned against an external surface of the cross-car beam (Fig. 10), and wherein portions of the external surface of the cross-car beam are exposed to the air flow between the ribs (Figs. 8-10).
Regarding claim 6, Scheib discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the ribs are oriented substantially along a direction of the air flow (Figs. 8-10).
Regarding claim 7, Scheib discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the air duct (12) is formed by a first clamshell component (32) and a second clamshell component (34) positioned against each other.
Regarding claim 8, Scheib discloses the system of claim 7, wherein each of the first and second clamshell components include a respective flange, and wherein the respective flanges (84,82) abut each other.
Regarding claim 9, Scheib discloses the system of claim 8, further comprising a slit formed in the cross-car beam structure, wherein the slit is configured to hold the respective flanges that are abutting each other (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Scheib discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a steering column bracket (44) attached to the cross-car beam, wherein the air duct includes a first air duct and a second air duct, and wherein a joint between the first and second air ducts is formed by sandwiching of the first and second air ducts between the steering column bracket and the cross-car beam structure (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Scheib discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the channel is defined by a first wall orientation and a second wall orientation, and wherein the cross-car beam and the cross-car beam structure form a nonlinear transition between the first and second wall orientations (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12, Scheib discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the second wall orientation is substantially parallel to and offset from the first wall orientation in a direction that is perpendicular to a plane of the first wall orientation (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 13, Scheib discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a manifold (43), wherein the air duct is coupled to the manifold.
Regarding claim 20, Scheib discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the channel formed by the cross-car beam and the cross-car beam structure comprises integration of the air duct into a cross-car beam assembly so that the air flow passes through the cross-car beam structure (Fig. 6).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Scheib.
Regarding claims 14-19, Scheib discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the manifold is installed in the system without separate fasteners and adhesive (Fig. 3) and wherein the air duct is formed by a first clamshell component (32) and a second clamshell component (34) positioned against each other and wherein each of the first and second clamshell components include a respective flange (82,84), and wherein the respective flanges abut each other.
Scheib does not specifically disclose that there are not additional fasteners or adhesive, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the system such that the manifold is installed without separate fasteners or adhesive such as a slit holding the flanges or a guide tab. The motivation would have been to simplify manufacturing and reduce parts and costs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L ENGLE whose telephone number is (571)272-6660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30 am-4 pm.
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.
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.
/Patricia L Engle/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3991