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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 9-11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 11,248,567) in view of Zhang (US 2020/0291884).
In regards to claim 1:
Jang teaches an internal combustion engine for a motor vehicle, an intake manifold, and an intake line extending from an air intake to draw outside air to the intake manifold (Col 1, Lines 27-34 recites an air intake duct, an air cleaner, and an intake manifold), the intake line comprising a connecting member (300) arranged between the air intake and the intake manifold and comprising: a flexible sleeve (Shown in Figure 3) extending along a longitudinal axis, an intake resonator (340) attached to the flexible sleeve and extending axially along the longitudinal axis at least partially within the flexible sleeve (300), and a nozzle (350) on a radially outer surface of the flexible sleeve to define an inlet orifice in the flexible sleeve.
Jang does not specify the internal combustion engine having a crankcase.
Zhang teaches an internal combustion engine (2) having a crankcase (20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to specify the engine of Jang to have a crankcase as taught by Zhang in order to house the crankshaft of the engine. It is known in the art for piston and cylinder engines to have a crankcase to house the crankshaft which rotates the piston and store lubricant at the base of the crankcase.
In regards to claim 2:
Jang teaches the flexible sleeve is bellows-shaped (Shown in Figure 3 of Jang).
In regards to claim 3:
Jang as modified teaches the intake line comprises a first duct attached to the air intake and extending towards the intake manifold downstream of the air intake (Col 1, Lines 27-34 recites an air intake duct, an air cleaner, and an intake manifold. Figure 2 also shows the path of the air intake from the inlet, through the air filter, through the connecting member, and then towards the intake manifold), as well as a second duct attached to the crankcase (the conduit shown in Zhang connecting the crankcase to the intake), the flexible sleeve connecting the first duct to the second duct and being more flexible than the first duct and the second duct, wherein the flexible sleeve of Jang has flexible bellows.
In regards to claim 4:
Jang teaches the nozzle extends radially from the radially outer surface of the flexible sleeve (Shown in Figure 3 of Jang).
In regards to claim 9:
Jang teaches the intake resonator (340) has an axial inlet opening and an axial outlet opening opposite the axial inlet opening according to the longitudinal axis, the axial outlet opening being arranged within the flexible sleeve, and wherein the axial inlet opening is arranged to receive an airflow directed from the air intake toward the intake manifold, so that the airflow enters the intake resonator through the axial inlet opening and exits the intake resonator into the flexible sleeve through the axial outlet opening (Shown in Figure 4 of Jang, air enters on the right side of the figure from the air cleaner 100, to the flexible sleeve, enters the resonator, exits the resonator in the tail end of the flexible sleeve, the air then making its way to the intake manifold).
In regards to claim 10:
Jang teaches the intake resonator (340) is arranged to plug an axial inlet opening of the flexible sleeve (Shown in Figure 4 of Jang).
In regards to claim 11:
Jang teaches the intake resonator (340) is bonded to a radially inner surface of the flexible sleeve (Col 7, Lines 7-9 recites the resonator is fixed to the inner surface of the intake hose 300, the definition of bonded being “joined securely to another thing” via search term on google “bonded definition”).
In regards to claim 13:
Jang teaches the flexible sleeve is axially tapered toward the intake manifold (the definition of tapered being “reduce in thickness toward one end” via search term on google “tapered definition”, wherein this is shown in Figure 8 that the thickness reduces from the inlet side toward the outlet side).
In regards to claim 15:
Jang teaches the nozzle (350) is positioned radially outwardly with respect to the sleeve, the intake resonator, and the longitudinal axis (Shown below in annotated Figure 4 of Jang).
PNG
media_image1.png
895
924
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Jang
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang and Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US 6,006,712).
In regards to claim 5:
Jang does not explicitly teach the connecting member (300) further comprising a connector attached to the nozzle (350) and adapted for connecting a conduit for a recirculation in the intake manifold of lubricating oil vapors, but does recite the nozzle (350) is used to recirculate blow-by gases to the intake and Jang does teach a connecting member (325) attached to a fresh air nozzle (320).
Suzuki teaches a connecting member (88) for recirculating lubricating oil vapors into an intake.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to specify the nozzle of Jang to have a connecting member as taught by Suzuki in order to pair a blow-by gas source to the blow-by gas intake inlet of Jang in order to reintroduce the blow-by gases into the intake. The usage of hoses and conduits are known in the art for transferring gases as well as maintaining pressure in a system, wherein having a blow-by gas outlet open to the atmosphere and an inlet open to the atmosphere would not be an efficient method of recirculating these gases.
In regards to claim 6:
Jang as modified teaches the connector comprises a check valve (valve 55 of Zhang) for limiting a return of lubricating oil vapors to said conduit.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang, Zhang and Suzuki as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kaufmann et al (US 2015/0176544 hereinafter “Kaufmann”).
In regards to claim 7:
Jang does not teach the nozzle comprises a bayonet coupling body for a bayonet coupling of the connector to the nozzle.
Kaufmann teaches a bayonet coupling body for a bayonet coupling of a connector (Paragraph [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the nozzle coupling of Jang to be a bayonet coupling as taught by Kaufmann in order to couple using a known method of coupling components (Paragraph [0082] of Kaufmann recites a plurality of coupling means including bayonet coupling). Various forms of coupling are known in the art to connect two or more components to one another, wherein the motivation is to combine the components together, whether in a permanent or non-permanent detachable way.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang, Zhang, Suzuki and Kuafmann as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of McDonnough et al (US 2021/0178117 hereinafter “McDonnough”).
In regards to claim 8:
Jang teaches the nozzle further comprises a support portion but does not teach the support portion is co-molded with the bayonet coupling body.
McDonnough teaches that couplings having multiple components that are co-molded (Paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the nozzle support portion and the bayonet coupling body of Jang as modified to be co-molded as taught by McDonnough in order to produce them in a known method of manufacturing. McDonnough teaches that components can be co-molded or separately molded and then attached together (Paragraph [0048 of McDonnough). Co-molding is a known method of molding and is known in the art to have benefits such as reducing assembly steps.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang and Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawazumi et al (US 2011/0214933 hereinafter “Kawazumi”).
In regards to claim 14:
Jang as modified teaches a motor vehicle comprising a chassis and an internal combustion engine according to claim 1, wherein the air intake is fixed relative to the chassis, and wherein the crankcase is suspended on the chassis (Shown in Figure 1 of Jang shows the engine is fixed to a vehicle chassis, and the intake is fixed to the vehicle chassis, and wherein the crankcase as taught by Zhang would be suspended on the chassis when an engine is mounted, wherein the definition of suspended being “hang (something) from somewhere” via search term on google “suspended definition”, wherein when the engine is mounted the other components of the engine including the crankcase will be hanging inside of the engine bay).
Kawazumi teaches an engine that is mounted to a vehicle chassis and the crankcase is suspended on the chassis due to being fixed to the engine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to explicitly teach the crankcase of Jang to be suspended in a chassis as taught by Kazazumi in order to mount the engine to the chassis to prevent the engine from detaching from the vehicle, and the crankcase to be attached to the engine to house and protect the crankshaft and underside of the engine. Mounting points and mounting brackets can be used on a plurality of points on the engine and crankcase to secure the engine to a vehicle chassis.
Claims 1, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadr et al (US 5,302,783) in view of Boast et al (US 2003/0085071 hereinafter “Boast”) and Jang.
In regards to claim 1:
Sadr teaches an internal combustion engine (25) for a motor vehicle, the internal combustion engine comprising a crankcase, an intake manifold (24), and an intake line extending from an air intake to draw outside air to the intake manifold (24), the intake line comprising a connecting member arranged between the air intake and the air intake manifold (24) and comprising, a flexible sleeve extending along a longitudinal axis, an intake resonator (1) attached to the flexible sleeve and extending axially along the longitudinal axis.
Sadr does not specify the intake resonator at least partially within the flexible sleeve, but does recite the resonator mounted to the flexible tubing, and does not teach a nozzle on a radially outer surface of the flexible sleeve to define an inlet orifice of the flexible sleeve.
Boast teaches a mounting of a resonator connection (10) that is inserted into a duct (32 and 34) (Shown in Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the resonator at least partially within the flexible sleeve as taught by Boast in order to mount the resonator into the sleeve.
Jang teaches a nozzle (320) on a radially outer surface of a sleeve to define an inlet orifice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the flexible sleeve of Sadr to have a nozzle on a radially outer surface as taught by Jang in order to allow an inlet of fresh air to enter the intake (Col 5, Lines 36-40 of Jang).
In regards to claim 17:
Sadr as modified teaches the flexible sleeve comprises a first sleeve end and a second sleeve end opposite the first sleeve end, and wherein the intake resonator comprises: a portion that plugs the first sleeve end; and an inlet extending outside of the flexible sleeve, wherein the resonator is mounted into the flexible sleeve by a portion that plugs into the first sleeve end, and the resonator that is not mounted inside of the first sleeve end of the flexible sleeve having an inlet that extends outside of the flexible sleeve.
In regards to claim 19:
Sadr as modified teaches the flexible sleeve comprises a bellows portion, and wherein the nozzle is defined in the bellows portion, wherein the intake duct is entirely made of bellows leading to the resonator and downstream of the resonator.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadr and Boast as applied to claim 1 above, and further in Koss et al (US 2009/0314241 hereinafter “Koss”).
In regards to claim 18:
Sadr teaches the flexible sleeve comprises an inlet sleeve end and an outlet sleeve end opposite the inlet sleeve end, but does not teach the outlet sleeve end is smaller than the inlet sleeve end.
Koss teaches a sleeve having an outlet sleeve end that is smaller than an inlet sleeve end (Shown in Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the outlet sleeve end of Sadr to be smaller than an inlet sleeve end as taught by Koss in order to take into account the rate of airflow and turbulence (Paragraph [0030] shows a tapering of air flow passage 114 from an inlet side marked by airflow ‘A’ towards the outlet side).
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadr and Boast as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Hooren et al (US 2008/0011377 hereinafter “Van”).
In regards to claim 20:
Sadr does not specify the flexible sleeve is comprised of an elastomeric material.
Van teaches a flexible sleeve made of an elastomeric material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to specify the material of the flexible sleeve of Sadr to be made of an elastomeric material as taught by Van in order to have the sleeve be flexible while being cost efficient and less prone to material failure (Abstract of Van).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not teach nor render obvious the flexible sleeve having a first resonator portion affixed in a first sleeve end and a second resonator portion positioned closer to a second sleeve end than a nozzle as recited in claim 16, and the flexible sleeve extending from an axial inlet to a downstream axial outlet opening, wherein the intake resonator comprises a first resonator end affixed in the axial inlet opening and a second resonator end positioned downstream of the first resonator end and within the flexible sleeve as recited in claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued the prior art does not teach the claimed invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees and has added additional annotated Figures to show the flexible sleeve, and wherein the resonator and nozzle are situated in relation to the flexible sleeve. Wherein the flexible sleeve to further illustrate that the sleeve is indeed flexible as defined as “characterized by a ready capability to adapt to new, different, or changing requirements” (www.merriam-webster.com) Col 7, Lines 21-30 of Jang recites “Meanwhile, as illustrated in FIG. 8, wrinkles 301 may be formed on the surface of the intake hose 300. When the intake hose 300 is connected to the air cleaner 100 or the compressor 200 of the turbo charger, the connection site which protrudes from the air cleaner 100 or the compressor 200 of the turbo charger and the site where the wrinkles 301 may be formed overlap with each other, and the ring-shaped clip may be mounted to the overlapping portion, and thus, the intake hose 300 may be connected to the air cleaner 100 or the compressor 200 of the turbo charger.” wherein the positioning of the flexible sleeve is ready to adapt to a changing positioning requirement to connect to an air cleaner or compressor of a turbo charger. It is also known in the art that all materials will have a level of flexibility before undergoing permanent plastic deformation, and the claim does not recite any values defining the elasticity nor the material itself. The prior art teaches a flexible sleeve extending along a longitudinal direction, an intake resonator at least partially within the flexible sleeve and extending in the same direction as the flexible sleeve, and a nozzle that defines an inlet on the flexible sleeve. New art has been added to address new claims.
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 JAMES JAY KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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 at (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 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.
/JAMES J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights