DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to applicant's amendment received on 4/27/2026. Amended claims 1, 3, and 12-13, and 19-20 are acknowledged and the following new grounds of rejection below are formulated. Claims 2, 4, 7, 15-16, and 21 are cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/27/2026 has been entered.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, 17-20, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US Publication 2007/0292816), hereinafter “Miller”.
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses the claimed invention such as an air intake apparatus (shown in figure 1), comprising: a pipe (184) comprising rubber (acoustic foam made of EDPM which is a synthetic rubber), a throttle body outlet configured to be coupled to a vehicle engine throttle body (paragraph 45), a resonator outlet (210) configured to be coupled to a resonator (paragraph 24, air box) of a vehicle engine intake system, an exterior surface comprising a pipe aperture (202 associated with acoustic foam 184), a sensor insert (138) coupled to the exterior surface via an over-molding of rubber (shown in figure 1 that the rubber 184 is molded circumferentially around sensor insert 138) and comprising an insert aperture (129) substantially aligned with the pipe aperture, and an inlet configured to be coupled to a vehicle engine air filter (paragraph 29), wherein the sensor insert is configured to be coupled to a mass air flow meter (MAF) sensor (MAFS); and an air intake sleeve (180) comprising a sleeve aperture and received by the pipe such that the sleeve aperture is substantially aligned with the pipe aperture and the insert aperture (182) to facilitate extension of a portion of the MAF sensor into an air flow path (192), wherein the pipe (184) comprises a first material (EPDM, paragraph 44) comprising a first stiffness and the air intake sleeve (184) comprises a second material (stainless steel) comprising a second stiffness greater than the first stiffness (paragraph 44), but is silent to disclose the wire mesh being a plastic. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to provide a plastic mesh component, 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 a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Examiner notes that stainless steel has a stiffness or Young’s Modulus of 190-210 GPa and EPDM has a Youngs Modulus of 0.006 GPa. Miller mentions in paragraph 44 that the wire mesh can also be any other suitable material so providing a plastic mesh would not teach away. Examiner also notes that the claims do not require that the plastic piping has to be the most exterior surface so Miller’s foam (184) can still read on this claim.
Regarding claim 3, Miller discloses the claimed invention but is silent to disclose wherein the first stiffness comprises a Young's modulus of between 2 and 10 megapascal (MPa) and the second stiffness comprises a Young's modulus of between 16 and 48 MPa. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to have these ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 5-6, Miller discloses the same invention substantially as claimed but is silent to disclose an interference fit for the insert into the intake piping. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to provide an interference fit for the purpose of providing a secure fitment means through the reduction of parts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to Miller by providing an interference fit for the insert for the purpose of providing a secure fitment means through the reduction of parts.
Regarding claim 8, Miller discloses the air intake apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sensor insert (138) comprises one or more threaded apertures (186) configured to receive one or more threaded fasteners (198) of the MAF sensor and thereby couple the MAF sensor to the sensor insert (paragraphs 34-35).
Regarding claim 9, Miller discloses the air intake apparatus of claim 1, wherein the air intake sleeve (180) further comprises a slot (shown in figure 1) disposed at an exterior end of the air intake sleeve (180) and substantially aligned in a longitudinal direction with at least a portion of each of the sleeve aperture, the pipe aperture (202), and the insert aperture (129, shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Miller discloses the air intake apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pipe (212 and 184) comprises an interior surface comprising a ridge (127) configured to restrict further insertion of the air intake sleeve in a direction opposite the inlet, wherein the ridge contacts at least a portion of a circumference of an interior end of the air intake sleeve (180, shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Miller discloses the claimed invention such as an air intake sleeve, comprising: an interior end opposite an exterior end, wherein the exterior end is configured to be disposed toward an inlet of a pipe of an air intake apparatus when the air intake sleeve is received by a lower pipe (shown in figure 1), wherein the inlet is configured to be coupled to a vehicle engine air filter (paragraph 46); and a sleeve aperture disposed between the interior and exterior ends and configured to substantially align with a pipe aperture (202) of the pipe, and an insert aperture (129) of a sensor insert coupled to the pipe, to facilitate positioning of a portion of a mass air flow (MAFS) sensor into an air flow path within the pipe when the MAF sensor (MAFS) is coupled to the sensor insert and the air intake sleeve is received by the pipe, wherein the pipe (184) comprises a first material (EPDM, paragraph 44) comprising a first stiffness and the air intake sleeve (180) comprises a second material (stainless steel) comprising a second stiffness greater than the first stiffness (paragraph 44), but is silent to disclose the interior end and the exterior end are each spaced about 40-60 millimeters from a midline of the sleeve aperture. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to have such a range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Miller discloses the claimed invention but is silent to disclose a stiffness on the sleeve comprising a Young's modulus of between 16-48 megapascal (MPa). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to have such a range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Miller discloses the air intake sleeve of claim 12, comprising a thickness of between 1 and 5 millimeters (paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 17, Miller discloses the air intake sleeve of claim 12 any of claims 12 to 16, further comprising a slot disposed at the exterior end and substantially aligned in a longitudinal direction with the sleeve aperture. Refer to rejection of claim 9 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 18, Miller discloses the air intake sleeve of claim 12 any of claims 12 to 17, wherein the exterior end is flared and comprises a substantially curved rim. Refer to rejection of claim 11 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 19, Miller discloses a method of manufacturing an air intake apparatus, the method comprising: molding a pipe comprising a rubber having a first stiffness, wherein the molding comprises over-molding a sensor insert at an exterior surface of the pipe such that an insert aperture of the sensor insert substantially aligns with a pipe aperture of the pipe; inserting an air intake sleeve into the pipe via an inlet of the pipe such that a sleeve aperture of the first air intake sleeve substantially aligns with the insert aperture and the pipe aperture, wherein the first air intake sleeve comprises plastic having a second stiffness greater than the first stiffness; and curing at least the pipe after the insertion of the first air intake sleeve to thereby retain the sensor insert and the first air intake sleeve in place. Refer to the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 7 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 20, Miller discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the second material has a Young's modulus of between 16 and 48 megapascal (MPa) and the first material has a Young's modulus of between 2 and 10 MPa. Refer to rejection of claim 3 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Regarding claim 22, Miller discloses the same invention substantially as claimed but is silent to disclose using a vulcanization process for curing the pipe. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to use a vulcanization process curing the intake piping for the purpose of using a chemical process that provides a more durable, elastic, and resistant material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to modify Miller by using the vulcanization process for the purpose of using a chemical process that provides a more durable, elastic, and resistant material.
Regarding claim 23, Miller discloses the method of claim 19 any of claims 19 to 22, further comprising coupling a mass air flow meter (MAF) sensor to the sensor insert such that a portion of the MAF sensor is disposed within an air flow path within the pipe. Refer to rejection of claim 1 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of King et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0018318), hereinafter “King”.
Regarding claim 11, Miller discloses the same invention substantially as claimed except for a flared exterior end comprising a curved rim. However, King teaches the use of curved rim (214) with a flared exterior (218, 228, shown in figure 3) for the purpose of providing a better means to hold the insert in place effectively (paragraphs 39 and 41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Miller by incorporating flared exterior and a curved rim for the purpose of providing a means to hold the insert in place effectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Since the amendments have provided additional limitations, the rejection has been changed to provide the pipe having a first material of EPDM and the sleeve being made of the wire mesh made of plastic since the wire mesh is part of the sleeve and paragraph 44 of Miller allows the wire mesh be made of other suitable materials. Applicant argues with accordance to the amendments provided and the examiner has changed the rejection and addressed these arguments within the rejections of the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED O HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 11AM-7PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/SYED O HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747 4/30/2026
Prosecution Insights