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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on (11/19/24) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: 1) It recites “a specific gravity larger than the air is arranged” but should recite “a specific gravity larger than the air that is arranged” or “a specific gravity larger than the air which is arranged”. 2) It recites “a second storage” and depends from claim 1 but “a first storage” is not introduced until claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
2. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: It recites “the intake port and the intake port” but should recite the “the intake port and the intake duct”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
1. Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto (JP 2002211252A).
Goto discloses an arrangement structure of an intake duct comprising an air inlet (12) for introducing outside air from outside of a vehicle (Goto, FIG 4), a heat bump (8, 9) for radiating heat to the introduced outside air introduced from the air inlet (12), an intake duct (11) having an intake port (11a) for taking in a part of the introduced outside air, the intake duct (11) being connected to an engine of the vehicle, and a first shielding member (4 acts as a shield in a collision and a wall that inherently diverts intake air) for defining a flow path (P) of the introduced outside air and shielding the intake port (11a) from a flow of the introduced outside air, wherein the first shielding member includes at least an upper wall (upper wall) for defining an upper part of the flow path (P) from the air inlet (12) to the heat bump (8, 9) and side walls for defining a side part of the flow path (P), and wherein the intake port (11a) is located above the upper wall (Goto, annotated FIG 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
1. Claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP 2002211252A) in view of Teraguchi et al. (US 8,127,878).
[CLAIM 2] Regarding claim 2, Goto discloses the arrangement structure of the intake duct according to claim 1.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein a first storage capable of storing contaminants contained in the introduced outside air and having a specific gravity larger than the introduced outside air is formed between the upper wall and the intake duct and wherein the first storage opens between a lower edge of the intake port and the upper wall.
-Nevertheless, Teraguchi discloses in Column 5, Lines 35-45 “Having passed through the slits 36 in the grill cover 30, the outside air flows rearward over the grill cover 30 and into the interior of the foreign matter separation space S, wherein foreign matter having a specific gravity larger than air that remains in the outside air falls into the foreign matter separation space S, and is discharged through the discharge port 53 to the exterior of the outside air introduction passage P”. Space S can be positioned as desired and between the upper wall and intake entrance if desired and “storage” which is conventionally a filter can be oriented as needed.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Goto to have a separation space as taught by Teraguchi with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide cleaner air as it is ingested by the engine.
[CLAIM 5] Regarding claim 5, Goto discloses the arrangement structure of the intake duct according to a claim 1, wherein the intake duct is connected to a filter for filtering the air taken in the intake duct (Goto, paragraph [0006] discloses an air cleaner which is conventional in the engine art).
-However, it fails to disclose at least one bent portion is formed between the filter of the intake duct and the intake port, and wherein a second storage (See claim objection above, examiner believes claim 5 should depend from claim 2 which introduces a first storage) capable of storing contaminants contained in the air and having a specific gravity larger than the air is arranged on an outer periphery of the at least one bent portion.
-Nevertheless, Teraguchi discloses an air intake system which is exemplary and includes bends. Additionally, Teraguchi discloses in Column 5, Lines 35-45 “Having passed through the slits 36 in the grill cover 30, the outside air flows rearward over the grill cover 30 and into the interior of the foreign matter separation space S, wherein foreign matter having a specific gravity larger than air that remains in the outside air falls into the foreign matter separation space S, and is discharged through the discharge port 53 to the exterior of the outside air introduction passage P”. Space S can be positioned as desired and between the upper wall and intake entrance if desired and “storage” which is conventionally a filter can be oriented as needed”
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Goto to have specific geometry having a bend as taught by Teraguchi with a reasonable expectation of success in order to direct air as desired for a particular vehicle application.
PNG
media_image2.png
647
545
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 6] Regarding claim 6, Goto/Teraguchi disclose the arrangement structure of the intake duct according to claim 1 comprising: a hood of the vehicle (Teraguchi, FIG 3, hood 1); a hood opening (Hoods inherently close an opening) of the vehicle closed by the hood (1); a gap formed between an inner periphery of the hood opening and an outer periphery of the hood (Teraguchi, FIG 3 is exemplary and any desired gap can be employed if desired for a particular vehicle application).
-However, they fail to disclose a second shielding member extending such that the second shielding member blocks (When assembled, the vehicles of Goto and Teraguchi include a plurality of front-end structure which can be considered air directing members for adequate engine performance) at least a space between a part of the gap closest to the intake port and the intake port (See claim objection regarding correction above. Goto discloses a first shielding member (the core support) which can have a plurality of members capable of duplication for a particular vehicle application. Regarding a duplication of parts, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide additional shielding with respect to the air intake structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 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.
Teraguchi et al. (US 8,127,878) and Goto (JP 2002211252A)
represent a similar air intake duct system as claimed by Applicants but fails to disclose each limitation of claims 3-4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-3411. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM PST.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on (571)270-5985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES J TRIGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3614B
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614