DETAILED ACTION
1. The Application, which filed on December 6, 2024, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Inventorship
3. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-7, 9, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamura (US 4,897,097) in view of Zuehl et al. (US 2022/0349334 A1).
Regarding claim 1, notes Figure 1, Yamamura invention teaches an air intake system [air cleaner] for an internal combustion engine of a vehicle [col. 1, lines 30-42], the air intake system comprising: a main housing [casing (10)] defining an interior chamber [chamber (15) and (16)] configured to receive an air filter [filter elements (12) and (13)]; a cover [cover (11)] seated on the main housing (10) to enclose the air filter (12/13) within the interior chamber (15/16); dual intake ducts [air inlet tubes (19) and (20)] fluidly coupled to the interior chamber (15/16) and configured to provide cold intake air col. 5, lines 46-55]; an air outlet [air outlet opening (30)] formed in the main housing (10) and configured to receive intake air that has passed through the air filter (12/13) [Figure 3 illustrates the air flows from the inlet tube (20) which passes through the filter element (13) to the air outlet opening (30); col. 5, lines 46-55]; and an air intake duct having a first end coupled to the air outlet (30) and a second end configured to couple to col. 4, lines 13-24 teaches a cleaned air is discharged from the opening (30) to be fed into an associated engine], wherein the air intake system is configured to provide a short airflow path directly into the engine rather than through a tortuous path [col. 4, lines 38-46 teaches the air flowing is carried out without generation of vortexes].
Yamamura invention fails to specifically disclose air inlet tubes 19/20 configured to provide cold intake air directly from a high pressure zone behind a vehicle grille; and the connection between the air filter and throttle body via an air intake duct.
Regarding the location of the air filter system which configured to provide the cold air directly from a high pressure zone behind the vehicle grille. It is the examiner's position that the air filter system which configured to provide the cold air directly from a high pressure zone behind the vehicle grille would have been an obvious matter of design choice well within the level of ordinary skill in the art, depending on variables such as available space/location. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed parameters present a novel or unexpected result, and such modification, i.e. choosing from the finite number of predictable solutions, is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (April 30, 2007)).
Regarding the connection between the air filter and the throttle body via the air intake duct.
Notes Figure 6, Zuehl invention teaches the air filter assembly (155) includes a frame (154), and the cleaned air conduit (158) is provided for the connection between the outlet of the air filter (155) and the inlet (144) of the throttle body (140).
Since applied prior art references are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Zuehl invention would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Yamamura.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modified the air intake system of Yamamura which including an air intake duct (158) is provided between the air filter body (154) and throttle body (140) in order to provide continuous improvement for the purpose of providing a short airflow path directly to an engine.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed and motivated in claim 1, the modified Yamamura further teaches wherein the air intake duct includes an elbow, wherein the elbow is the only elbow in the air intake system between the dual intake ducts and the throttle body [Yamamura (Figures 1, 6, 7) in view of Zuehl (Figure 6)].
Regarding claim 3, as discussed and motivated in claim 1, the modified Yamamura further teaches the elbow provides a turn in the airflow path that is approximately 90° [Yamamura (Figures 1, 6, 7) in view of Zuehl (Figure 6)].
Regarding claim 4, as discussed and motivated in claim 1, the modified Yamamura does not clearly teach the air filter is generally annular, and the cover is a generally circular plate.
Regarding the air filter is generally annular, and the cover is a generally circular plate. Since Zeuhl invention discloses the shape of the housing (105) and its cover are approximately annular and circular plate. It is the examiner's position that the shape of the air filter and its cover would have been an obvious matter of design choice well within the level of ordinary skill in the art, depending on variables such as available shape, space or location. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed parameters present a novel or unexpected result, and such modification, i.e. choosing from the finite number of predictable solutions, is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (April 30, 2007)).
Regarding claim 5, as discussed and motivated in claim 1, the modified Yamamura further teaches the air intake duct comprises: a mass air flow (MAF) tube coupled to the main housing air outlet [Figure 8, Yamamura]; and a throttle body duct coupled to the MAF tube [Figure 8, Yamamura] and configured to couple to the throttle body [in view of Figure 6, Zeuhl].
Regarding claim 6, as discussed and motivated in claim 1, the modified Yamamura further teaches the MAF tube includes a MAF sensor (33) [Figure 8, Yamamura].
Regarding claim 7, as discussed and motivated in claim 1, the modified Yamamura further teaches a MAF wiring jumper (34) electrically coupled to the MAF sensor [Figure 6, Yamamura].
Regarding claim 9, the modified Yamamura does not clearly teach the main housing includes a bottom wall and a generally annular sidewall that defines the interior chamber with a generally cylinder shape.
Regarding the main housing, it includes a bottom wall and a generally annular sidewall that defines the interior chamber with a generally cylinder shape. Since Zeuhl invention discloses the shape of the housing (105) and its structural configuration [Figures 1-3]. It is the examiner's position that shape and structural of the main housing would have been an obvious matter of design choice well within the level of ordinary skill in the art, depending on variables such as available shape, space or location. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed parameters present a novel or unexpected result, and such modification, i.e. choosing from the finite number of predictable solutions, is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (April 30, 2007)).
Regarding claim 14, as discussed and motivated in claim 1, the modified Yamamura further teaches each of the two inlet pipes (19/20) comprises: a top wall; a bottom wall; and a pair of opposed sidewalls extending between the top wall and the bottom wall, which define a port for providing intake air into the housing chamber [Figure 3, Yamamura].
Regarding claim 16, as discussed and motivated in claim 1, it would have been well-known there is a kit for repair/replace the air cleaner system for internal combustion engine.
Regarding claim 17, see discussion and motivation in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 8, 10-13 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but it would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 8, the prior art references do not specifically teach the configuration of the air intake duct of claim 5, further comprising a make-up air tube fluidly coupled to the MAF tube to provide make-up air thereto.
Regarding claims 10-13, the prior art references do not specifically teach one or more rear attachment flanges extending outwardly from the main housing sidewall and including at least one first aperture configured to receive a first fastener for coupling to an engine compartment of the vehicle; and one or more front attachment flanges extending outwardly from the dual intake ducts and including at least one second aperture configured to receive a second fastener for coupling to the engine compartment.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art references do not specifically teach the configuration of the air intake duct of claim 14, which further comprising the top wall and opposed sidewalls are integrated with the main housing, and wherein the bottom wall is removably attached to the opposed sidewalls.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNY H HOANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-4843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday [Maxi-Flex].
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, Logan Kraft can be reached on (571) 270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)? If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.H.H./
September 15, 2026
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/Johnny H. Hoang/
Examiner, Art Unit 3747
