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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to Applicant’s Reply of July 31, 2026.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claim 21 has been added.
The drawings were received on July 31, 2026. These drawings are accepted and overcome the previously presented objection thereto.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 overcomes the previously presented 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection thereof.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 11 and 16 overcome the previously presented 35 USC 103 rejection thereof.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 11, and 16 overcome the previously presented double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, and 16 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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) 1, 3-9, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foulbueuf (EP 2832984 A1) in view of Rebhan (DE 202005017642 U1) and Ennin et al. (US 2007/0216162, Ennin).
Regarding claim 1: Foulbueuf discloses a duct assembly Fig 2 comprising:
a metallic flange 50 having a first side B (see reproduction of Figure 2 below), a second side A (see reproduction of Figure 2 below) opposite the first side, and an opening Fig 2 formed at the first side of the metallic flange; and
a plastic duct 20 – [0035] extending from the second side of the metallic flange Fig 2, the plastic duct including a flange portion 21, C (see reproduction of Figure 2 below) extending along the second side of the metallic flange and a passageway 24 that is in fluid communication with the opening of the metallic flange Fig 2, the first side of the metallic flange configured to join to a metallic mounting surface 11 – [0036], [[037] of a vehicular component 10 – [0034] and the passageway of the plastic duct is configured to be in fluid communication with the vehicular component via the opening of the metallic flange when the duct assembly is mounted at the vehicular component Fig 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
652
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Foulbueuf discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the plastic duct being over-molded at the second side of the metallic flange and the metallic flange comprising a compression limiter extending from the second side of the metallic flange and at least partially through the flange portion of the plastic duct.
Rebhan discloses a pipe/flange arrangement used in a diesel engine Abstract. Rebhan also discloses the advantageous of over-molding metal components, such as a flange, with plastic 3rd paragraph on page 1 of the provided translation.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Foulbueuf so that the plastic of the duct over-molded the metal flange, as suggested by Rebhan, in order to have ensured a secure and pressure tight connection between the duct and metal flange thus preventing failure during use 3rd paragraph on page 1 of the provided translation.
Foulbueuf, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the metallic flange comprising a compression limiter integrally formed with the metallic flange and extending from the second side of the metallic flange and at least partially through the flange portion of the plastic duct.
Ennin discloses a metallic flange 2 that includes compression limiters 11 that are integrally formed with the flange Fig 1b and extending from the side of the flange that faces and abuts a second flange 4, Fig 4. The compression limiters extend at least partially through the second flange Fig 4.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Foulbueuf so that the metallic flange included a compression limiter integrally formed with the metallic flange and extending from the second side of the metallic flange and at least partially through the flange portion of the plastic duct, as suggested by Ennin, increased the mechanical stability of the connection between the flanges [0025].
Regarding claim 3: Wherein the second side of the metallic flange comprises an interlock surface 57 – [0043] of Foulbueuf.
Regarding claim 4: Foulbueuf, as modified, discloses that the plastic duct adheres to the metallic flange 3rd paragraph on page 1 of the provided translation of Rebhan but fails to disclose the use of a bonding agent.
However, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Foulbueuf to include a bonding agent between the second side of the metallic flange and the plastic duct in order to have ensured effective adhesion between the two elements. This would have achieved the predictable results of ensuring that the plastic molded to the metallic flange would not separate during operation of the vehicular component.
Regarding claim 5: Wherein the duct assembly is configured to be secured at the vehicular component via a mechanical fastener 32, 33 of Foulbueuf extending through the metallic flange and received at the vehicular component Fig 2 of Foulbueuf.
Regarding claim 6: Wherein the mechanical fastener extends through the metallic flange and the flange portion of the duct Fig 2 of Foulbueuf.
Regarding claim 7: Wherein the mechanical fastener 19 of Ennin extends through the metallic flange and the flange portion of the plastic duct and along the compression limiter Fig 4 of Ennin.
Regarding claim 8: Wherein the first side of the metallic flange is configured to engage a metallic gasket 60 – [0060] of Foulbueuf disposed between the first side of the metallic flange and the mounting surface of the vehicular component Fig 2 of Foulbueuf.
Regarding claim 9: Wherein the metallic flange is configured to join to the metallic mounting surface at one selected from the group consisting of [0035] of Foulbueuf.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foulbueuf in view of Rebhan and Ennin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tachihara et al. (US 2002/0004021, Tachihara).
Foulbueuf, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except that the vehicular component comprises a compressor of a fuel cell system of a vehicle, the compressor generating heat during operation of the fuel cell system. Foulbueuf does discloses that the duct assembly is used with the compressor of a turbo charger [0011].
Tachihara discloses a fuel cell system 1 of a vehicle, wherein the system includes a compressor 5. The compressor is attached to ducts 1a of the system by a series of flanges F1, F2.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Foulbueuf so that the duct assembly was used with a compressor of a fuel cell system, as suggested by Tachihara, in order to have limited the deformation of the ducts and flanges in the system that may occur during operation [0003]-[0008] of Foulbueuf.
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachihara in view of Foulbueuf, Rebhan, and Ennin.
Regarding claims 11 and 16: Tachihara discloses a fuel cell system 1 of a vehicle, wherein the system includes a compressor 5. The compressor is attached to ducts 1a of the system by a series of flanges F1, F2.
Tachihara discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except duct/flange arrangement, or duct assembly, comprising:
a metallic flange having a first side, a second side opposite the first side, and an opening formed at the first side of the metallic flange, the first side of the metallic flange joined to the metallic mounting surface of the component; and
a plastic duct extending from the second side of the metallic flange, the plastic duct over-molded at the second side of the metallic flange and including a passageway that is in fluid communication with the opening of the metallic flange, the first side of the metallic flange configured to join to the metallic mounting surface of the component and the passageway of the plastic duct is configured to be in fluid communication with the component via the opening of the metallic flange when the duct assembly is mounted at the component, metallic flange comprising a compression limiter integrally formed with the metallic flange and extending from the second side of the metallic flange and at least partially through the flange portion of the plastic duct.
Foulbueuf discloses a duct assembly Fig 2 comprising:
a metallic flange 50 having a first side A (see reproduction of Figure 2 above), a second side B (see reproduction of Figure 2 above) opposite the first side, and an opening Fig 2 formed at the first side of the metallic flange; and
a plastic duct 20 – [0035] extending from the second side of the metallic flange Fig 2, the plastic duct including a flange portion 21, C (see reproduction of Figure 2 above) extending along the second side of the metallic flange a passageway 24 that is in fluid communication with the opening of the metallic flange Fig 2, the first side of the metallic flange configured to join to a metallic mounting surface 11 – [0036], [[037] of a vehicular component 10 – [0034] and the passageway of the plastic duct is configured to be in fluid communication with the vehicular component via the opening of the metallic flange when the duct assembly is mounted at the vehicular component Fig 2.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tachihara to use the duct assembly of Foulbueuf in order to have limited the deformation of the ducts and flanges in the system that may occur during operation [0003]-[0008].
Tachihara, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the plastic duct being over-molded at the second side of the metallic flange and the metallic flange comprising a compression limiter integrally formed with the metallic flange and extending from the second side of the metallic flange and at least partially through the flange portion of the plastic duct.
Rebhan discloses a pipe/flange arrangement used in a diesel engine Abstract. Rebhan also discloses the advantageous of over-molding metal components, such as a flange, with plastic 3rd paragraph on page 1 of the provided translation.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Tachihara so that the plastic of the duct over-molded the metal flange, as suggested by Rebhan, in order to have ensured a secure and pressure tight connection between the duct and metal flange thus preventing failure during use 3rd paragraph on page 1 of the provided translation.
Tachihara, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the metallic flange comprising a compression limiter integrally formed with the metallic flange and extending from the second side of the metallic flange and at least partially through the flange portion of the plastic duct.
Ennin discloses a metallic flange 2 that includes compression limiters 11 that are integrally formed with the flange Fig 1b and extending from the side of the flange that faces and abuts a second flange 4, Fig 4. The compression limiters extend at least partially through the second flange Fig 4.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Tachihara so that the metallic flange included a compression limiter integrally formed with the metallic flange and extending from the second side of the metallic flange and at least partially through the flange portion of the plastic duct, as suggested by Ennin, increased the mechanical stability of the connection between the flanges [0025].
Regarding claims 12 and 17: Wherein the second side of the metallic flange comprises an interlock surface 57 – [0043] of Foulbueuf.
Regarding claim 13 and 18: Tachihara, as modified, discloses that the plastic duct adheres to the metallic flange 3rd paragraph on page 1 of the provided translation of Rebhan but fails to disclose the use of a bonding agent.
However, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Tachihara to include a bonding agent between the second side of the metallic flange and the plastic duct in order to have ensured effective adhesion between the two elements. This would have achieved the predictable results of ensuring that the plastic molded to the metallic flange would not separate during operation of the vehicular component.
Regarding claims 14 and 19: Wherein the mechanical fastener 32, 33 of Foulbueuf, 19 of Ennin extends through the metallic flange and the flange portion of the plastic duct and along the compression limiter Fig 2 of Foulbueuf, Fig 4 of Ennin, the mechanical fastener received at the component to secure the duct assembly at the component Fig 2 of Foulbueuf.
Regarding claims 15 and 20: Wherein the first side of the metallic flange is configured to engage a metallic gasket 60 – [0060] of Foulbueuf disposed between the first side of the metallic flange and the mounting surface of the vehicular component Fig 2 of Foulbueuf.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER H GAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7029. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 6-3:30 and every other Friday 6-11.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/JENNIFER H GAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
JHG
8/10/2026
Prosecution Insights