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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, “wherein said cooling intake duct structure is configured to enable effective airflow and drainage for said military hybrid vehicle,” is unclear what is meant by “effective airflow.” For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the limitation to be referring to the following portion of the specification: “the incoming air can be smoothly guided to the air filter 140 while suppressing water from penetrating into the air filter 140 or onboard equipment to secure cooling performance.”
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “each of said plurality of first louvers (124) has uniform thickness along its horizontal and vertical sides, and identical length and width, forming a straight-line configuration” is used. It is unclear what is mean by “straight-line configuration.” For the purposes of examination, “straight-line configuration” will be taken to indicate that the louvres are each aligned with each other and not in a staggered fashion where some louvres may be offset.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “a rectangular ring-shaped second grill support (132) installed to correspond to the edge of the front opening of said duct housing (110)” is used. It is unclear, in light of claim 3 which sets forth “a rectangular ring-shaped first grill support (122) installed to correspond to the edge of the front opening of said duct housing (110),” as to how the rectangular ring-shaped second grill support is to be installed at the edge of the housing, while the rectangular ring-shaped first grill support is likewise installed to correspond to the edge of the front opening of the duct housing. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret that the rectangular ring-shaped first grill support (122) is installed to correspond to the edge of the front opening of the duct housing (110), while the rectangular ring-shaped second grill support (132) is installed to correspond to, and parallel to, the rectangular ring-shaped first grill support (122).
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the angle of inclination” in line 1 is used without an earlier recitation in any of the previous claims from which claim 8 depends. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 1 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (CN 115610358 A) in view of Bemiss (US 4325283 A) and Cheol et al. (KR101315313B1).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng et al. discloses a cooling intake duct structure (vehicle-mounted air conditioner, Para [0004], and grid plate 201, Fig. 201, Para [0014]), a duct housing (110) (plate 203, Fig. 4); and an air filter (140) installed at a rear opening of said duct housing (110) (filtering gauze 208, Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zheng, Figure 4
Zheng et al. however does not disclose usage for a military hybrid vehicle with a bulletproof grill, comprising: a bulletproof grill (120) installed at a front opening of said duct housing (110); a directional guide grill (130) installed at a rear side of said bulletproof grill (120) within the front interior of said duct housing (110) to guide airflow direction; a plurality of drainage holes (112) formed at the front bottom surface of said duct housing (110) along the lateral direction at regular intervals, wherein said cooling intake duct structure is configured to enable effective airflow and drainage for said military hybrid vehicle.
However, Bemiss in the field of vehicle bulletproof grills teaches a military vehicle (armored vehicle, Fig. 1) with a bulletproof grill (Armored grille 20 prevents projectiles such as bullets, Col. 3, Lns. 16-18, Figs. 4 and 5), comprising: a bulletproof grill (120) installed at a front opening of said duct housing (110); (Armored grille 20 prevents projectiles such as bullets, Col. 3, Lns. 16-18, shown at opening at arrow 50 in Figs. 4 and 5), a directional guide grill (130) installed at a rear side of said bulletproof grill (120) within the front interior of said duct housing (110) to guide airflow direction (the grille 28 allows airflow therethrough as shown by arrows 50 in Fig. 4, as part of inner plates 32, Col. 4, Lns. 18-20).
PNG
media_image2.png
501
898
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bemiss, Figure 4 and Figure 5
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention to substitute the grid plate as taught Zheng et al. with the bulletproof grill and directional guide grill as taught by Bemiss in order to aid the airflow properly toward the filter as well as to keep shrapnel and projectiles away from the internal components of the unit.
The combination of Zheng in view of Bemiss does not clearly teach a plurality of drainage holes (112) formed at the front bottom surface of said duct housing (110) along the lateral direction at regular intervals, wherein said cooling intake duct structure is configured to enable effective airflow and drainage for said military hybrid vehicle.
Cheol et al. in the field of vehicle air filters with inflow material emission structures teachers a plurality of drainage holes (112) formed at the front bottom surface of said duct housing (110) along the lateral direction at regular intervals, wherein said cooling intake duct structure is configured to enable effective airflow and drainage for said military hybrid vehicle (A plurality of drain holes 43 protruding horizontally from the upper side of the front part to the rear, and allowing foreign substances such as dust or the like falling down through the vortex generating frame 5 or inflowing substances such as snow or rain, and the vortex generating frame 5 Vortex generating frame (5) spaced apart at regular intervals, Para [0040]).
PNG
media_image3.png
438
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Cheol, Figure 5
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Zheng in view of Bemiss by adding the filter and drainage holes taught in Cheol with a reasonable expectation of success arriving at the claimed invention and with the motivation of having a filter to sift debris and foreign substances (Cheol, Para [0031]), and drainage holes in order to discharge unwanted fluid buildup such as rainwater or snow (Cheol, Para [0053]).
Regarding the recitation “hybrid” in the preamble, it is noted that the body of the respective claims recite a structurally complete invention. In this regard, “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation.” Quoting, Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In any event, the applied prior art for each of the rejections, based on the current record is at least configured to perform the intended use and/or functions recited.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (CN 115610358 A) in view of Bemiss (US 4325283 A) and Cheol et al. (KR101315313B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jacquemont (WO 2019141483 A1) in the field of vehicle cooling air intakes.
Regarding claim 2, the above combination does not teach the following which is taught by Jacquemont:
wherein said duct housing (110) is characterized in that the upper surface and lower surface are inclined to gradually lower toward the front (upper surface of box 2, and lower surface of bottom wall 12 both incline toward front of vehicle; Fig. 1), with said upper surface protruding further forward than said lower surface (top surface inclines further down as shown in Fig. 1 at hinge 8), forming a front opening between said upper and lower surfaces (front opening 6, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
624
700
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Jacquemont, Figure 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Zheng et al. (CN 115610358 A) in view of Bemiss (US 4325283 A) and Cheol et al. (KR101315313B1) by adding the inclination features of Jacquemont with a reasonable expectation of success arriving at the claimed invention and with the motivation of allowing sludge or debris to slide down towards the opening under the effect of gravity (Jacquemont, Pg. 4), and for the upper surface to protrude farther down in order to allow for the inclination of the louvres with respect to the frame (Jacquemont, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Bemiss further teaches:
wherein said bulletproof grill (120) comprises: a rectangular ring-shaped first grill support (122) (grille support 28, Fig. 1) installed to correspond to the edge of the front opening of said duct housing (110) (the support 28 of grille 20 has a peripheral plate-like construction with approximately the same shape as the engine compartment opening 24 but of a slightly larger size so as to engage front armor plate 22 of the vehicle body at the periphery of the opening in the mounted relationship shown; Col. 4, Lns. 23-29); and a plurality of first louvers (124) installed within the opening of said first grill support (122) at regular vertical intervals and inclined upwardly from front to rear (As seen in Figs. 3, 4 and 5, each louver 26 extends between a pair of vertically extending side plates 36 which are mounted on the grille support 28; Col. 3, Lns. 43-45, louvers shown inclined upwardly from front to rear; Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Zheng et al. (CN 115610358 A) in view of Bemiss (US 4325283 A), Cheol et al. (KR101315313B1), and Jacquemont (WO 2019141483 A1) by adding the ring-shaped fist grill and upwardly inclined louvers of Bemiss with a reasonable expectation of success arriving at the claimed invention and with the motivation of securing the louvers in a fashion so as to deflect projectiles (Bemiss; Col. 2, Lns. 17-26).
Regarding claim 4, Bemiss further teaches:
wherein each of said plurality of first louvers (124) has uniform thickness along its horizontal and vertical sides (the thickness appears uniform for each louver shown in Fig. 4), and identical length and width, forming a straight-line configuration (louvers appear to be of equal size, shown parallel with each other forming a straight-line configuration; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Zheng et al. (CN 115610358 A) in view of Bemiss (US 4325283 A), Cheol et al. (KR101315313B1), and Jacquemont (WO 2019141483 A1) by adding the dimensional features of Bemiss with a reasonable expectation of success arriving at the claimed invention and with the motivation of providing adequate consistent thickness throughout the louver profile so as to properly stopping projectiles such as bullets (Bemiss; Col. 2, Lns. 65 – Col. 3, Ln. 1).
Claims 5-7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (CN 115610358 A) in view of Bemiss (US 4325283 A), Cheol et al. (KR101315313B1), and Jacquemont (WO 2019141483 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Schade et al. (WO 2014164531 A2) in the field of armored vehicle air passage structures.
Regarding claim 5, the above combination does not teach the following which is taught by Schade:
wherein said directional guide grill (130) comprises: a rectangular ring-shaped second grill support (132) (S-louver assembly 61 shown as part of grille structure 50; Figs. 4A-4B) installed to correspond to the edge of the front opening of said duct housing (110) (the grille structure 50, as depicted in Figures 4A-12, is configured for an air intake. Alternate configurations are envisioned for exhaust or other openings that require passage of air; Pg. 11, Lns. 8-9); and a plurality of second louvers (134) installed within the opening of said second grill support (132) at regular vertical intervals (louvers 60; see Figs. 6-7) and inclined to match the spacing between the rear sides of said plurality of first louvers (124) (S-louver 60 shown to abut flat louver 58; Figs. 6-7).
PNG
media_image5.png
287
626
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
326
561
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Schade, Figure 4A and Figure 6
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Zheng et al. (CN 115610358 A) in view of Bemiss (US 4325283 A), Cheol et al. (KR101315313B1), and Jacquemont (WO 2019141483 A1) with second grille support as taught by Schade with a reasonable expectation of success arriving at the claimed invention and with the motivation of supporting the second set of louvers, and inclination of the second set of louvers as further taught by Schade in order to match the spacing of the first louvers with the second set of louvers for the purpose of maintaining adequate flow volume (Schade, Pg. 3, Lns. 11-13).
Regarding claim 6, Bemiss further teaches:
wherein each of said plurality of second louvers (134) has uniform thickness along its horizontal and vertical sides (rear louvers 32 shown at Fig. 4 appear to be of uniform thickness), and identical length and width (see Fig. 4), forming a straight-line configuration (louvers are shown parallel to each other thereby forming a straight-line configuration; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Zheng et al. (CN 115610358 A) in view of Bemiss (US 4325283 A), Cheol et al. (KR101315313B1), and Jacquemont (WO 2019141483 A1) by adding the dimensional features of Bemiss with a reasonable expectation of success arriving at the claimed invention and with the motivation of providing uniform, steady airflow for adequate cooling therethrough (Bemiss, Col. 4, Lns. 18-22).
Regarding claim 7, Schade further teaches:
wherein each of said plurality of second louvers (134) has uniform thickness along its horizontal and vertical sides, identical length and width, and an S-shaped curve in its width extending from the front to the rear (identically shaped S-louvers 60; Figs. 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Zheng et al. (CN 115610358 A) in view of Bemiss (US 4325283 A), Cheol et al. (KR101315313B1), and Jacquemont (WO 2019141483 A1) with the S-shaped louver profile as taught by Schade with a reasonable expectation of success arriving at the claimed invention and with the motivation of supporting the second set of louvers, and inclining the second set of louvers to match the spacing of the first set with the spacing of the second set for the purpose of maintaining adequate flow volume (Schade, Pg. 3, Lns. 11-13).
Regarding claim 10, Schade further teaches:
wherein each of said plurality of first louvers (124) is made of a material with higher strength than that of each of said plurality of second louvers (134) (the flat louvers are formed of rigid metal, such as high hard armor steel, while the S-louvers are formed of aluminum, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Zheng et al. (CN 115610358 A) in view of Bemiss (US 4325283 A), Cheol et al. (KR101315313B1), and Jacquemont (WO 2019141483 A1) with the front louvers of Schade with a reasonable expectation of success arriving at the claimed invention and with the motivation of using higher strength material such as metal to act as armor so as to ward off bullets or shrapnel (Schade, Pg. 9, Lns. 12-16).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (CN 115610358 A) in view of Bemiss (US 4325283 A), Cheol et al. (KR101315313B1), Jacquemont (WO 2019141483 A1), and Schade et al. (WO 2014164531 A2) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kondoh (US 20240075805 A1) in the field of vehicle cooling air grills.
Regarding claim 8, Schade et al. (WO 2014164531 A2) further teaches a plurality of second louvers (134) (louvers 60; see Figs. 6-7), but does not appear to teach the following which is taught by Kondoh:
wherein the angle of inclination of said plurality of second louvers (134) is the same as the angle of inclination of said top surface of said duct housing (110) and said bottom surface, decreasing toward the front (a grille opening 15 for introducing cooling air is provided in the center of the lower front design panel 11; Fig. 2).
It can be seen in Fig. 2, the grille opening 15 top surface and bottom surface are in parallel with the louvers thereby featuring an identical angle of inclination as shown below.
PNG
media_image7.png
631
782
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kondoh, Figure 2
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Zheng et al. (CN 115610358 A) in view of Bemiss (US 4325283 A), Cheol et al. (KR101315313B1), and Schade et al. (WO 2014164531 A2) by adding the same inclination angle feature of Kondoh with a reasonable expectation of success arriving at the claimed invention and with the motivation of allowing for non-turbulent airflow at the top and bottom surface of the grille thereby maintaining effective airflow into the duct housing.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (CN 115610358 A) in view of Bemiss (US 4325283 A), Cheol et al. (KR101315313B1), Jacquemont (WO 2019141483 A1), and Schade et al. (WO 2014164531 A2) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kerns (US 8667931 B2) in the field of vehicle air intake systems.
Regarding claim 9, the above combination does not teach the following which is taught by Kerns:
wherein each of said plurality of first louvers (124) is formed with a greater thickness than each of said plurality of second louvers (134) (vanes of vane system 14A appear thicker than vanes of vane system 16A; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Zheng et al. (CN 115610358 A) in view of Bemiss (US 4325283 A), Cheol et al. (KR101315313B1), and Schade et al. (WO 2014164531 A2) by thicker front louvers as taught by Kerns with a reasonable expectation of success arriving at the claimed invention and with the motivation of preventing debris from entering the duct or allowing for more robust louver in order to shield against foreign objects such as projectiles.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (CN 115610358 A) in view of Bemiss (US 4325283 A), Cheol et al. (KR101315313B1), Jacquemont (WO 2019141483 A1), and Schade et al. (WO 2014164531 A2) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Middione (US 5753847 A) in the field of armored vehicle exhaust vent systems.
Regarding claim 11, the above combination does not teach the following which is taught by Middione:
wherein said plurality of first louvers (124) (metal bars 20; Fig. 2) are spaced closer together vertically than said plurality of second louvers (134) (spacing 26 is smaller than spacing 34 of louvers 17 due to metal bars 20 being spaced closer together; Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image8.png
386
719
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Middione, Figure 2
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Zheng et al. (CN 115610358 A) in view of Bemiss (US 4325283 A), Cheol et al. (KR101315313B1), and Jacquemont (WO 2019141483 A1) with the first louvers are spaced closer together than the second louvers as taught by Middione with a reasonable expectation of success arriving at the claimed invention and with the motivation of minimizing projectile entry into the ducting system (Middione, Col. 2, Lns. 26-37).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (CN 115610358 A) in view of Bemiss (US 4325283 A), Cheol et al. (KR101315313B1), Jacquemont (WO 2019141483 A1), and Schade et al. (WO 2014164531 A2) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Summers (US 1206166 A) in the field of airflow deflector plates for vehicle radiators.
Regarding claim 12, the above combination does not teach the following which is taught by Summers:
wherein said plurality of first louvers (124) and said plurality of second louvers (134) form an obtuse angle with each other (angle between plates 10 and plates 15 appears to be greater than 90 degrees and smaller than 180 degrees thereby forming an obtuse angle; Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image9.png
435
498
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Summers, Figure 3
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Zheng et al. (CN 115610358 A) in view of Bemiss (US 4325283 A), Cheol et al. (KR101315313B1), and Jacquemont (WO 2019141483 A1) with the obtuse angle feature between the louver groups as taught by Summer with a reasonable expectation of success arriving at the claimed invention and with the motivation of having an optimal position of the first louvers so as to allow air to penetrate the duct while keeping debris from entering the interior of the duct housing (Summer; Col. 2, Lns. 80-88).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Patent Number 5,641,933 to Kim is directed to a ballistic grill for special purpose vehicles. Grills may be of various shapes including S-shaped (Fig. 3b). Additionally, grills may be bent at an obtuse angle situated between a first (front) portion, and second (rear) portion (Fig. 3a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SALIM JOSEPH ALAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3992. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/SALIM JOSEPH ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights