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 5/24/2026 are as follows:
Claims 1-10 are cancelled by the applicant;
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).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
“so that the L-shaped cross section in the motor vehicle width direction rests on an inside of the angular cross section” (Claim 11; A gap is shown between the two components);
“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, is smaller than 90°” (Claim 16; Figures 1-3 appear to illustrate a 90 degree angle);
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 2 and 3 do not align with the configuration shown in Figure 1, thus rendering the figures confusing. Specifically, the shape of 3 in Figure 1 is not the same as seen in the cross sections of Figures 2 and 3. Additionally, the projection 31 is pointing to the right in Figure 1 but to the left in Figures 2 and 3. Further, in Figure 1, the reference character 2 is perpendicular to the frame 3, but inline in Figures 2 and 3. Thus, the coordinates X, Y, Z labels don’t seem to be consistent.
PNG
media_image1.png
868
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 5-6 of the reply that Maeda fails to teach “wherein the radiator frame, in an end region facing the air guide, has an angular cross section 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”. Madea teaches the radiator frame 50 has an angular cross section, wherein the L-shaped end region of the air guide (40, 42) can rest on the supports (Figure 4). Further, the applicants’ own figures illustrate a gap between the air guide and the radiator frame (see Figures 1-3 of applicants’ figures). Thus, to the extent that applicants’ air guide “rests on” the radiator frame, so to does Madea. Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 6 of the reply that Maeda fails to teach “the angular end region of the radiator frame has a T-shaped cross section” of claim 15. The angular end region of the radiator frame has an outwardly extending flange at 90 degrees, and thus is considered T-shaped. Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 6-7 of the reply that the prior art fails to 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” of claim 12. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Maeda discloses the air guide (Figure 4; Paragraphs 40, 51, 52) and 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). 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. Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7 of the reply that it would not have been obvious to duplicate the features of claim 14. 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). Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7 of the reply that an angle of less than 90 degrees is not a result effective variable and thus argues that routine optimization cannot be applied. 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). The variable is the angle and the result is the amount of airflow deflection. Thus, the angle value is a result effective variable. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
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 TRAVIS 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
Prosecution Insights