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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on August 17, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 13-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. 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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is in single sentence claim format. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 5, “an air duct” would be clearer if written as –the air duct--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,139,018 to Bianchi in view of U. S. Patent 4,748,070 to Beehler.
Referring to claim 1, Bianchi teaches a vehicle air duct (20) comprising:
a first end (right end in Fig. 2) to couple the vehicle air duct to a vehicle heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) unit; a second end (left end in Fig. 2) to couple the vehicle air duct to a vehicle air vent; and the air duct (20) coupling the first and second ends to each other, the air duct (20) formed by shells (30) joined to each other (Figures 1-7, Figures 2 and 3 annotated below; col. 1 lines 6-9 and col. 2 line 11 – col. 4 line 63).
[AltContent: textbox (Tab)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second End)][AltContent: textbox (First End)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
313
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Bianchi Figure 2.
[AltContent: textbox (Flange)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Flange)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Flange)]
PNG
media_image2.png
458
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Bianchi Figure 3.
Bianchi teaches the duct being made from polypropylene, but does not teach the air duct of a fiber-film laminate. Beehler teaches a polypropylene comprising:
a fiber-film laminate, the fiber-film laminate comprising a porous fiber sheet of polymer material, the fiber sheet laminated with a polymer film, wherein the polymer film is at an outward surface (abstract, col. 1 line 67 - col. 4 line 37).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the air duct taught by Bianchi with the material taught by Beehler in order to use a material with high tear strength while retaining desirable tensile properties (Beehler col. 1 lines 33-38), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Referring to claim 2, Bianchi and Beehler teach an air duct comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Bianchi further teaches an air duct wherein:
each of the shells (30) includes a flange, and where the shells (30) are welded to each other using the flanges (Figures 1-7, Figures 2 and 3 annotated above; col. 1 lines 6-9 and col. 2 line 11 – col. 4 line 63).
Referring to claim 3, Bianchi and Beehler teach an air duct comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Bianchi further teaches an air duct comprising:
a tab extending from the outward surface of one of the shells (30), the tab configured for attaching the vehicle air duct (20) (Figures 1-7, Figures 2 and 3 annotated above; col. 1 lines 6-9 and col. 2 line 11 – col. 4 line 63).
Referring to claim 5, Bianchi and Beehler teach an air duct comprising all the limitations of claim 3, as detailed above, and Bianchi further teaches an air duct wherein:
the tab includes a hole that facilitates attachment of the vehicle air duct (Figures 1-7, Figures 2 and 3 annotated above; col. 1 lines 6-9 and col. 2 line 11 – col. 4 line 63).
While Bianchi teaches a holes instead of the claimed slit, the Examiner finds that a hole performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way as a slit, and a hole produces substantially the same results as the claimed slit. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the hole shown in the prior art for the claimed slit, and there are insubstantial differences between the hole and the slit. Accordingly, the claimed slit is equivalent to and taught y the hole of Bianchi. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute applicant’s slit for the hole of Bianchi. MPEP 2183. Furthermore, the Applicant has not provided any reason why a slit shape attachment is critical to the claimed invention, and therefore it would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to use a circular shape attachment, as an obvious matter of design choice since applicant has not disclosed that different shape attachments solve any stated problems or are for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with different shape attachments.
Referring to claim 12, Bianchi and Beehler teach an air duct comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Bianchi further teaches an air duct wherein:
a polymer includes polyethylene (Figures 1-7, Figures 2 and 3 annotated above; col. 1 lines 6-9 and col. 2 line 11 – col. 4 line 63).
Beehler teaches the use of a polymer film, as detailed above.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent 10,139,018 to Bianchi in view of U. S. Patent 4,748,070 to Beehler and U. S. Patent Publication 2021/0079158 to Gu.
Referring to claim 6, Bianchi and Beehler teach an air duct comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but do not teach a polymer made from polyester. Gu teaches a polymer wherein:
the polymer material includes polyester (abstract, paragraphs [0037]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the Bianchi air duct from polyester, as taught by Gu, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Referring to claim 7, Bianchi and Beehler teach an air duct comprising all the limitations of claim 6, as detailed above, and Bianchi teaches a polymer made from polyethylene, but do not teach a polymer made from polyethylene succinate. Gu further teaches a polymer wherein:
the polymer material includes polyethylene succinate (abstract, paragraphs [0037]-[0040]).
Claims 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent 10,139,018 to Bianchi in view of U. S. Patent 4,748,070 to Beehler and U. S. Patent Publication 2021/0061193 to Shin.
Referring to claim 6, Bianchi and Beehler teach an air duct comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but do not teach a polymer made from polyester. Shin teaches an air duct wherein:
the polymer material includes polyester (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0028]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the Bianchi air duct from polyester, as taught by Shin, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Referring to claim 8, Bianchi, Beehler and Shin teach an air duct comprising all the limitations of claim 6, as detailed above, and Bianchi teaches a polymer made from polyethylene, but Bianchi and Beehler do not teach a polymer made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Shin further teaches a polymer wherein:
the polymer material includes polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0028]-[0034]).
Referring to claim 9, Bianchi, Beehler and Shin teach an air duct comprising all the limitations of claim 8, as detailed above, and Bianchi teaches a polymer made from polyethylene and polypropylene, but Bianchi does not teach a polymer made from PET and polypropylene. Beehler also further teaches the duct being made from polypropylene (abstract, col. 1 line 67 - col. 4 line 37). Bianchi and Beehler do not teach the polyethylene being PET, but Shin further teaches a polymer wherein the polymer material includes PET (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0028]-[0034]). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,139,018 to Bianchi in view of U. S. Patent 4,748,070 to Beehler, U. S. Patent Publication 2021/0061193 to Shin and U. S. Patent Publication 2003/0062013 to Kino.
Referring to claim 10, Bianchi, Beehler and Shin teach an air duct comprising all the limitations of claim 8, as detailed above, Bianchi teaches a polymer made from polyethylene and polypropylene, but Bianchi does not teach a polymer made from PET and high-density polyethylene. Bianchi and Beehler do not teach the polymer also being made from PET, but Shin further teaches a polymer wherein the polymer material includes PET (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0028]-[0034]). Bianchi, Beehler and Shin do not teach the polymer comprising high-density polyethylene. Kino teaches a material comprising:
PET and high-density polyethylene (paragraph [0085]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the Bianchi duct from PET and high-density polyethylene, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,139,018 to Bianchi in view of U. S. Patent 4,748,070 to Beehler and U. S. Patent Publication 2003/0050007 to Gebke.
Referring to claim 11, Bianchi and Beehler teach an air duct comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but do not teach a polymer made from polyurethane. Gebke teaches a duct wherein:
a polymer material includes polyurethane (paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the Bianchi duct from polyurethane, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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: the prior art does not teach a vehicle air duct comprising all the limitations of claims 1, 3 and 4, but more specifically comprising a weakening in the tab, the weakening formed in a compression molding process where the shells are manufactured, the weakening facilitating reorientation of the tab for attaching the vehicle air duct.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN MATTHEW LETTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights