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 .
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 8/19/2024 are as follows:
Claims 1-10 are cancelled by the applicant;
Claims 11-20 are newly added;
Claims 11-20 are pending and are being examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
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.
Claims 11, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeda (US2003/0168270A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 11. Maeda discloses a cooling system for a motor vehicle comprising (Figures 4; Paragraphs 25-40):
a cooling module (10, 20) configured to cool a drive device (“E/G”) of the motor vehicle that is disposed in a motor vehicle longitudinal direction behind the cooling module (Figures 4; Paragraphs 25-40);
a radiator frame (50) that, in a motor vehicle width direction, is disposed laterally to the cooling module (Figures 4; Paragraphs 25-40); and
an air guide (40,42) that, proceeding from the radiator frame (50), extends in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction toward a front and is disposed in the motor vehicle width direction laterally to the cooling module (10, 20), wherein the air guide, in an end region facing the radiator frame, has a L-shaped cross section (Figure 4), and wherein the radiator frame (50), in an end region facing the air guide, has an angular cross section (Figure 4) for receiving the L-shaped end region of the air guide so that the L-shaped cross section in the motor vehicle width direction rests on an inside of the angular cross section (Figures 4; Paragraphs 25-40).
Re Claim 15. Maeda the angular end region of the radiator frame has a T-shaped cross section (Figure 4).
Re Claim 17. Maeda discloses the cooling system has a fan disposed in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction behind the cooling module and that is designed to induct an air mass flow (Figures 4; Paragraphs 25-40).
Re Claim 18. Maeda discloses the air guide is disposed so that the air mass flow inducted by the fan is directed from an air inlet in a front of the motor vehicle to the cooling module (Figures 4; Paragraphs 25-40).
Re Claim 19. Maeda discloses a motor vehicle, comprising: the cooling system according to claim 11 (Figures 4; Paragraphs 25-40).
Re Claim 20. Maeda discloses as a drive device: an electric motor that is disposed in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction behind the cooling system, and/or an internal combustion engine that is disposed in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction behind the cooling system (Figures 4; Paragraphs 25-40; E/G is an engine that is either electric or internal combustion).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (US2003/0168270A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Hacker (DE102021102468B3, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 12. Maeda discloses the air guide (Figure 4; Paragraphs 40, 51, 52) but fails to specifically teach the air guide has a hard component and a soft component, wherein the soft component is disposed in, or forms, the end region of the air guide having the L-shaped cross section that faces the radiator frame. However, Maeda does disclose that the air guide can be formed from multiple components and combined, wherein the two different components would not necessarily have the same rigidity (Figure 4; Paragraphs 40, 51, 52). Additionally, Hacker teaches it is known to form a first duct (12) with a first hard area (12a) and a peripheral soft area (14) for forming a seal between a first duct (12) and an associated duct (16) (Figures 1-2; Abstract). When Hacker is combined with Maeda, the resulting combination would be the L-shaped end region of Maeda’s air guide would be formed of the soft component (as taught by Hacker) and the remaining central portion of Maeda would be formed from the hard component.
Therefore, in view of Hackers's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the air guide of Maeda with a hard component and a soft component, wherein the soft component is disposed in, or forms, the end region of the air guide having the L-shaped cross section that faces the radiator frame in order to provide a better seal between the air guide and radiator frame to reduce air leakage.
Additionally, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In this instance, the predictable solutions are the two components have the same material stiffness, the first component is stiffer, or the second component is stiffer. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. optimal airflow blockage at the clearance, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maeda, by trying to form the air guide with a hard component and a soft component, wherein the soft component is disposed in, or forms, the end region of the air guide having the L-shaped cross section that faces the radiator frame, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select the preferred materials of the two components, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re Claim 13. Maeda as modified by Hacker disclose the hard component, proceeding from the L-shaped end region of the air guide, extends in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction toward the front (Maeda Figure 4, Paragraphs 40, 51, 52; Hacker Figure 1, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maeda, by trying to form the air guide with a hard component, proceeding from the L-shaped end region of the air guide, extends in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction toward the front, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select the preferred materials of the two components, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re Claim 14. Maeda as modified by Hacker disclose the air guide in an end region facing away from the radiator frame, has a further L-shaped cross section (Maeda 40, 41 both contain L-sections) (Maeda Figure 4, Paragraphs 40, 51, 52; Hacker Figure 1, Abstract), but fails to specifically teach wherein a further soft component is disposed in, or forms, the end region of the air guide having the further L-shaped cross section that faces away from the radiator frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a further soft component is disposed in, or forms, the end region of the air guide having the further L-shaped cross section that faces away from the radiator frame, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, B).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (US2003/0168270A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 16. Maeda discloses an angle (α) between a part of the T-shaped cross section that extends in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction and a part of the T-shaped cross section that extends in the motor vehicle width direction, on a side that faces away from the L-shaped end region of the air guide (Figure 4) but fails to specifically teach is smaller than 90°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select an angle less than 90°, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS C RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763