DETAILED ACTION
In the reply filed 7/13/2026, claims 2-3 are amended and new claims 9-20 are added. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 recites: “the second air passage extends in a height direction of the vehicle body, the first air passage is positioned above the front trunk, and the second air passage causes the first air passage and the underfloor space, the underfloor space being positioned below the front trunk, to communicate with each other.” The recitation is not understood. The disclosure is understood such that the second air passage directs airflow away from the space below the front trunk.
PNG
media_image1.png
360
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
How does the second air passage cause the first air passage to communicate with the space positioned below the front trunk? Due to the nature of indefiniteness, it would be inappropriate to address claim(s) 12 with prior art.
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) 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 14, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venter (WO 2021/171213 A1) in view of Rucker (US 11,858,463).
Regarding claim 1, Venter teaches: a vehicle outside air intake structure configured to supply an outside air to an in-vehicle battery (14, 15) stored in an underfloor space (best shown in Figs. 1-2) of a vehicle body of a vehicle, the vehicle outside air intake structure comprising:
an outside air intake port (102) disposed at a front part of the vehicle body;
a first air passage (108.1) communicating with the outside air intake port, the first air passage being provided under a front hood of the vehicle body; and
a second air passage (see the air passage located with the vehicle battery, and/or passage 108.2) communicating with both of the first air passage and the underfloor space, the second air passage being provided rearward of the front trunk, wherein
the outside air introduced from the outside air intake port is to be blown through the first air passage and the second air passage into the underfloor space.
Relevant elements are best shown in Figs. 1, 2, and 4.
Venter fails to teach a front trunk as claimed. Rucker teaches a front trunk (12) disposed in a chamber of the vehicle body and an opening-and-closing lid (14) configured to block an upper surface opening of the front trunk so as to be openable. See especially Figs. 1-3. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the vehicle disclosed by Venter with a front trunk (and associated lid), as suggested by Rucker; the motivation being: for the storage of items such as tools, cables, etc. Additionally, the front trunk system suggested by Rucker provides sealing features, which protect stored items from moisture, dust, etc.
The combination further teaches: the first air passage being provided between a front hood of the vehicle body and the opening-and-closing lid. In Rucker, see the space below the hood, and above the lid, best shown in Fig. 3. This space is analogous to the space occupied by the first air passage from Venter. Those having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to route air through any front openings/passages which would facilitate sufficient airflow.
Regarding claim 2, the combination further teaches: the front hood and the opening-and-closing lid are separately assembled to the vehicle body (the front hood is hinged to the body, and the opening-and-closing lid is assembled to the body via elements 12 and 42), and the opening-and-closing lid is configured to be opened and closed without movement of the front hood (while the front hood 44 is in position SH3, the opening-and-closing lid 14 is configured to be opened and closed). See Figs. 2-3 from Rucker.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the combination further teaches: a radiator (12) is disposed rearward of the outside air intake port of the vehicle body, and an air blowing fan (20, or 21) is disposed rearward of the radiator, and the outside air introduced from the outside air intake port is to be blown by the air blowing fan through the first air passage and the second air passage into the underfloor space. See Fig. 4 from Venter.
Regarding claim 11, the combination further teaches: the opening-and-closing lid is in contact with the outside air flowing through the first air passage so as to perform heat exchange therewith, and an air layer is formed in the first air passage between the opening-and-closing lid and the front hood. In Rucker, see the space below the hood, and above the lid, best shown in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 14, the combination further teaches: wherein the vehicle body further comprises a floor panel (the panel on which passenger seats are mounted, best shown by Venter in Fig. 2), and the underfloor space is disposed below the floor panel.
Regarding claim 17, the combination further teaches: an electricity supply unit (22; see Fig. 4 from Venter) disposed in the chamber of the vehicle body in a vicinity of the front trunk.
Regarding claim 19, the combination further teaches: the vehicle is one of a battery electrical vehicle, a hybrid electrical vehicle, and a plug-in hybrid electrical vehicle. See the Background of the Invention from Venter.
For the purpose of addressing further new claims, a second interpretation of the combination is relied upon:
Regarding claim 1, Venter teaches: a vehicle outside air intake structure configured to supply an outside air to an in-vehicle battery (14, 15) stored in an underfloor space (best shown in Figs. 1-2) of a vehicle body of a vehicle, the vehicle outside air intake structure comprising:
an outside air intake port (the openings formed by the front grille 23) disposed at a front part of the vehicle body;
a first air passage (108.1) communicating with the outside air intake port, the first air passage being provided under a front hood of the vehicle body; and
a second air passage (see the air passage located with the vehicle battery, and/or passage 108.2) communicating with both of the first air passage and the underfloor space, the second air passage being provided rearward of the front trunk, wherein
the outside air introduced from the outside air intake port is to be blown through the first air passage and the second air passage into the underfloor space.
Relevant elements are best shown in Figs. 1, 2, and 4.
Venter fails to teach a front trunk as claimed. Rucker teaches a front trunk (12) disposed in a chamber of the vehicle body and an opening-and-closing lid (14) configured to block an upper surface opening of the front trunk so as to be openable. See especially Figs. 1-3. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the vehicle disclosed by Venter with a front trunk (and associated lid), as suggested by Rucker; the motivation being: for the storage of items such as tools, cables, etc. Additionally, the front trunk system suggested by Rucker provides sealing features, which protect stored items from moisture, dust, etc.
The combination further teaches: the first air passage being provided between a front hood of the vehicle body and the opening-and-closing lid. In Rucker, see the space below the hood, and above the lid, best shown in Fig. 3. This space is analogous to the space occupied by the first air passage from Venter. Those having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to route air through any front openings/passages which would facilitate sufficient airflow.
Regarding claim 9, the combination further teaches: an outside air introduction air passage (see the airflow through the radiator 12 and/or fans) assembled to the vehicle body in front of the front trunk, the outside air introduction air passage being configured to blow the outside air introduced from the outside air intake port (at grille 23) into the first air passage. See at least Fig. 4 from Venter.
Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that, in the combination, because of the placement of the radiator and fan from Venter, the outside air introduction air passage would be located in front of the front trunk in the combination. Additionally, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the outside air introduction air passage in front of the front trunk as a matter of design choice, yielding the same predictable results, since such a modification is a change of location of parts. The rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 10, the combination further teaches: the first air passage is formed between the front hood and the opening-and-closing lid in a state where both the front hood and the opening-and-closing lid are in fully closed states. In Rucker, see the space below the hood, and above the lid, best shown in Fig. 3.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venter in view of Rucker, as relied upon in the second interpretation above, in further view of Cote (US 11,628,888).
Regarding claim 15, the combination fails to disclose a front bumper. Cote teaches: a front bumper (16) is provided at the front part of the vehicle body, and the outside air intake port (the spaces defined by the front grille 18) is disposed above the front bumper. See Fig. 1. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide a bumper, as taught by Cote, to the combination. The motivation being: for impact absorption in the event of a frontal impact.
Regarding claim 16, the combination further teaches: a front grille (23) assembled to a formation region of the outside air intake port of the vehicle body. See Fig. 4 from Venter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 7, and 8 are allowed.
Claims 13, 18, and 20 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 may be found in the prior Action.
Claim 18 is allowable for similar reasons as claim 3.
Claims 13 and 20 introduce limitations relating to the second air passage and a drainage hole. While Rucker teaches a drainage hole for the front trunk 12 (see column 4, lines 47-55), the combination does not locate the drainage hole as claimed.
None of the prior art, alone or in combination, anticipates or renders obvious the subject matter of claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 18, 20. To modify any of the prior art of record to arrive at the invention set forth by claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 18, 20 would be unobvious and improper hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states: “Venter and/or Rucker, alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest the claimed first air passage being provided between the front hood and the opening-and-closing lid because the proposed combination would defeat the express purpose of Rucker and the Examiner has not articulated a sufficient rationale to combine the references in the manner alleged.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant suggests that the presence of seal element 48 from Rucker would yield sealing contact and prevent air passage, as needed by Venter. This argument is not persuasive because the seal 48 seals the lid 14 to the front trunk 12; see positions SH1 and S1 (see Fig. 3 from Rucker). Seal 48 does not seal the space under the hood 44, between the hood and the lid 14. Seal 48 does not prevent airflow to the space directly under the hood when the hood is closed and the lid is sealed against the front trunk. Fig. 3 from Rucker clearly indicates a space which would permit free airflow in the space directly under the hood.
Further arguments relate to the incorrect assumption that Rucker would inhibit air flow. The proposed combination would not render either reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. In Rucker, only the space enclosed by the lid 14 and front trunk 12 is sealable. Neither reference suggests sealing the space directly under the hood, and it is unclear how Applicant has reached this conclusion.
Applicant suggests the Examiner has not articulated a sufficient rationale to combine. This argument is not persuasive because the reason has been clearly articulated in the prior and present Action: Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the vehicle disclosed by Venter with a front trunk (and associated lid), as suggested by Rucker; the motivation being: for the storage of items such as tools, cables, etc. Additionally, the front trunk system suggested by Rucker provides sealing features, which protect stored items from moisture, dust, etc. See column 1, lines 16-31 from Rucker.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, motivation is found not only by Rucker but also in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EMMA K FRICK whose telephone number is (571)270-5403. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M, T, F.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4324. 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.
/EMMA K FRICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights