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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1–12, and 14–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyer et al. (FR 2931944 A3), hereinafter referred to as Meyer.
Regarding claim 1, Meyer teaches, “A system (Fig. 1, ref. # 1) comprising a duct (40), wherein the duct (40) comprises a mechanical connection interface (end of 42) configured to be coupled (pg. 4, ln. 15–26) to an air inlet (4) of a vehicle (2) such that the duct (40) and the air inlet (4) of the vehicle (2) are fluidically connected, and wherein the duct (40) comprises a first inlet (inlet of 27/inlet of 6) configured to receive a carrier substance and a second inlet (25A/26A) configured to receive a test substance, a test substance provider (25 or 26) fluidically connected to the second inlet (25A/26A), and a first detector (33/32) configured to detect the test substance in at least one of an interior (3) of the vehicle (2) and in an exterior (10) of the vehicle (2), wherein the system is configured for testing a cabin air quality component (3) of the vehicle (2).”
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Meyer teaches, “wherein the duct comprises an elongated portion, wherein a length of the elongated portion extending along a flow direction exceeds a biggest diameter of the elongated portion, wherein the biggest diameter is measured transverse to the flow direction; wherein the elongated portion is tube-shaped (see 42).”
Regarding claim 4 and 5, Meyer teaches, “wherein the duct comprises at least one conical portion, wherein the conical portion is opening towards the mechanical connection interface; wherein the duct comprises two conical portions arranged adjacent to one another, wherein the two conical portions differ in their respective opening angles (see first/upstream part and second/downstream part of 42).”
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Meyer teaches, “a mixing device arranged inside the duct; mixing the carrier substance and the test substance in the duct (see for example, conjunction between 40 and 25A).”
Regarding claim 7, Meyer teaches, “a second detector configured to detect the test substance and configured to detect the test substance in at least one of the interior of the vehicle and the exterior of the vehicle (see 32 or 33).”
Regarding claim 8, Meyer teaches, “wherein the test substance provider comprises at least one of a particle generator and a gas supply (see 25 and 26).”
Regarding claim 9, Meyer teaches, “wherein the first detector comprises at least one of a gas sensor and a particle counter (see 32 or 33).”
Regarding claim 10, Meyer teaches, “A method comprising: mechanically coupling (pg. 4, ln. 15–26) a duct (40) to an air inlet (4) of a vehicle (2) such that the duct (40) and the air inlet (4) of the vehicle (2) are fluidically connected, supplying a mixture (6, 25, 26, 27) comprising a carrier substance (air) and a test substance (25 or 26) at the air inlet (4) of the vehicle (2) via the duct (40), detecting the test substance at least at one of a location associated with an air outlet (see 33) of a cabin air quality component (3) and a location associated with an exterior (see 32) of the vehicle (2), wherein the method is used for testing the cabin air quality component (3) of the vehicle (2).”
Regarding claim 12, Meyer teaches, “testing the cabin air quality component of the vehicle in an environment having controllable temperature and controllable humidity (pg. 8, ln. 14–15).”
Regarding claim 14, Meyer teaches, “wherein the mixture comprises a constant concentration of the test substance (6, 25, 26, 27 constant concentration is controllable; pg. 6, ln. 18–30 & pg. 7, ln. 10–17).”
Regarding claim 15, Meyer teaches, “wherein detecting the test substance comprises at least one of determining a mass distribution associated with the test substance and determining a removal efficiency associated with the test substance (pg. 9, ln. 11–pg. 10, ln. 7).”
Regarding claim 16, Meyer teaches, “wherein the mass distribution is determined as a function of a particle diameter of the test substance (pg. 9, ln. 11–pg. 10, ln. 7).”
Regarding claim 17, Meyer teaches, “wherein the removal efficiency is determined as a ratio of particles withheld by the cabin air quality component with respect to the particles supplied to the cabin air quality component (pg. 9, ln. 11–pg. 10, ln. 7).”
Claim(s) 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woolard et al. (US Pub. # 20160097706), hereinafter referred to as Woolard.
Regarding claim 18, Woolard teaches, “A duct (see at least Fig. 2A, 2B, 3A–3D; ref. # 200; see para. [0026–0030]) comprising: a first conical portion (portion at 206); and a second conical portion (portion at 208); and wherein the second conical portion comprises an opening angle different from the first conical portion (206 opening different from 208).”
Regarding claim 19, Woolard teaches, “a first inlet (airflow at 220) configured to receive a carrier substance; and a second inlet (314; see description thereof at [0030–0031]) configured to receive a test substance.”
Regarding claim 20, Woolard teaches, “a mixing device (mixing device description throughout Woolard; specifically see abstract, [0005, 0007, 0025–0027, 0034–0037, 0049–0052, 0079–0087]) arranged at an interface between the first conical portion and the second conical portion.”
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (FR 2931944 A3) in view of Gauthe et al. (EP 3845404 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gauthe.
Regarding claim 13, while Meyer teaches providing a test substance in the field of endevour of pollution detection and prevention, Meyer doesn’t appear to discuss, “wherein the test substance comprises at least one of a salt, a Di-Ethyl-Hexyl-Sebacat, and soot.” However, Gauthe teaches the deficiencies of Meyer (see para. [0042]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Meyer’s invention to include wherein the test substance comprises at least one of a salt, a Di-Ethyl-Hexyl-Sebacat, and soot.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Meyer’s invention for at least the purpose of using well-known pollutant simulation materials, known to have consistent distributable doses, for testing and detection of the performance characteristics of indoor vehicle air filtering parts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach airflow testing systems and devices configured similarly to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights