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 .
Response to Arguments
The applicants arguments have been carefully considered but are moot due to a new grounds for rejection, as explained below
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “HOW TO INSTALL BIG MOUTH RAM AIR INTAKE FORD FOCUS RS” dated Mar 30, 2017, seen on the Blake’s Garage YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwPBelbTamY, accessed on 08/26/2023.
In re claim 1, in the video Blake teaches, inter alia, an interchangeable intake assembly, comprising:
a base member (fig. 2-3 as shown below) configured to
engage an automobile intake airbox (as suggested in fig. 3);
a gooseneck member (as shown in fig. 1 below) fixedly attached to the base member (as indicated in the video and indicated below),
the gooseneck member having
a first end opening (portion closest to basemember, as shown in fig. 1-2) and
a second end opening (portion closest to bellhousing, as shown in fig. 1);
a plurality of candidate bell housings (as indicated in the video, available in different colors),
each candidate bell housing configured to be
removably secured to the second end opening of the gooseneck member (via groves and flanges as indicated in the video and indicated via. fig. 1 below, (and possibly with the aid of an adhesive, as is common practice in the art)); and wherein
each candidate bell housing has a unique ornamental design visible through a forward automotive intake grille when installed on the gooseneck member (as indicated in the video and as indicated in fig. 4 below).
Blake seems to be silent regarding wherein
a first candidate bell housing secured to the second end opening is
selectively removable and
replaceable with a second candidate bell housing from the plurality of candidate bell housings; and wherein
each candidate bell housing has a unique ornamental design comprising
a distinct external shape,
visible through a forward automotive intake grille when installed on the gooseneck member.
However, the limitation requiring that the first candidate bell housing be removeable and replaceable with a second candidate bell housing, having a unique ornamental design comprising a distinct external shape, visible through a forward automotive intake grille when installed on the gooseneck member, seems to be an obvious aesthetic design choice.
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Blake, such that/to incorporate a first candidate bell housing secured to the second end opening is selectively removable and replaceable with a second candidate bell housing from the plurality of candidate bell housings; and wherein each candidate bell housing has a unique ornamental design comprising a distinct external shape,
visible through a forward automotive intake grille when installed on the gooseneck member, since
such a modification would merely be an aesthetic design choice and the courts have found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) See MPEP 2144.04
PNG
media_image1.png
514
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 Annotated screenshot from HOW TO INSTALL BIG MOUTH RAM AIR INTAKE FORD FOCUS RS” seen on the Blake’s Garage.
PNG
media_image2.png
479
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 Annotated screenshot from HOW TO INSTALL BIG MOUTH RAM AIR INTAKE FORD FOCUS RS” seen on the Blake’s Garage.
PNG
media_image3.png
426
633
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 Annotated screenshot from HOW TO INSTALL BIG MOUTH RAM AIR INTAKE FORD FOCUS RS” seen on the Blake’s Garage.
PNG
media_image4.png
485
813
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 Annotated screenshot from HOW TO INSTALL BIG MOUTH RAM AIR INTAKE FORD FOCUS RS” seen on the Blake’s Garage.
In re claim 3, Blake teaches the interchangeable intake assembly of claim 1, wherein
the gooseneck member comprises
an interior cavity (as indicated in the video and as indicated via. fig. 1-4) configured to
direct air from the second end opening to the first end opening (as indicated in the video and as indicated via. fig. 1-4).
In re claim 4, Blake teaches the interchangeable intake assembly of claim 1, wherein
each candidate bell housing comprises
a frustoconical shaped cross section on at least one plane (as indicated in the video and as indicated via. fig. 1).
In re claim 5, Blake teaches the interchangeable intake assembly of claim 1, wherein
each candidate bell housing comprises one or more grooves (as indicated in the video and as indicated via. fig. 1).
In re claim 6, Blake teaches the interchangeable intake assembly of claim 5, wherein
the gooseneck member comprises one or more
flanges (as indicated in the video and as indicated via. fig. 1) configured to
engage the one or more grooves on a selected candidate bell housing (as indicated in the video and as indicated via. fig. 1).
In re claim 7, Blake teaches the interchangeable intake assembly of claim 6, wherein
the one or more flanges directly adjoin the one or more grooves on at least three sides (as indicated in the video and as indicated via. fig. 1).
In re claim 8, Blake teaches the interchangeable intake assembly of claim 1, wherein
each candidate bell housing is configured to
be secured to the gooseneck member via at least one of:
a fastener (note: fastening via fasteners is a common practice in the art, and illustrated in the video);
a friction fit (as suggested in the video and as suggested via. fig. 1);
a clamshell fit (note: securing via a clamshell type fitment is a known practice in the art);
hook and loop fasteners (note: securing via hook and loop fasteners (also referred to as Velcro) is a known practice in the art);
magnets (note: bonding via magnets is a known practice in the art); or
an adhesive (note: adhesive bonding is a common practice in the art).
In re claim 9, Blake teaches the interchangeable intake assembly of claim 1, wherein
the base member, gooseneck member, and plurality of candidate bell housings are formed of a rigid material (as indicated in the video and as shown via. fig. 1-4).
In re claim 11, Blake teaches an interchangeable intake system, comprising:
a gooseneck member (as shown in the video and in fig. 1 above) configured to
attach to an automobile intake airbox (as indicated in the video and in fig. 3),
the gooseneck member having
a first end opening (portion closest to base member, as shown in fig. 1-2) and
a second end opening (portion closest to bellhousing, as shown in fig. 1);
a set of interchangeable bell housings (as indicated in the video, via. different colors being available with a single bell housing shown in fig. 1 above),
each bell housing in the set configured to
removably attach to the second end opening of the gooseneck member (as shown in the video and indicated in fig. 1); and wherein
each bell housing in the set has a unique external appearance (as indicated in the video and as indicated in fig. 4 above).
Blake seems to be silent regarding wherein
a first candidate bell housing secured to the second end opening is
selectively removable and
replaceable with a second candidate bell housing from the plurality of candidate bell housings; and wherein
each candidate bell housing has a unique ornamental design comprising
a distinct external shape,
visible through a forward automotive intake grille when installed on the gooseneck member.
However, the limitation requiring that the first candidate bell housing be removeable and replaceable with a second candidate bell housing, having a unique ornamental design comprising a distinct external shape, visible through a forward automotive intake grille when installed on the gooseneck member, seems to be an obvious aesthetic design choice.
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Blake, such that/to incorporate a first candidate bell housing secured to the second end opening is selectively removable and replaceable with a second candidate bell housing from the plurality of candidate bell housings; and wherein each candidate bell housing has a unique ornamental design comprising a distinct external shape,
visible through a forward automotive intake grille when installed on the gooseneck member, since
such a modification would merely be an aesthetic design choice and the courts have found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) See MPEP 2144.04
In re claim 12, see claims 3 and 11 above.
In re claim 13, see claims 4 and 11 above.
In re claim 14, see claims 6 and 11 above.
In re claim 16, see claim 1 above.
In re claim 17, see claims 1, 3 and 16 above.
In re claim 18, see claims 1, 4 and 16 above.
In re claim 19, see claims 6 and 16 above
In re claim 20, see claims 8 and 16 above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “HOW TO INSTALL BIG MOUTH RAM AIR INTAKE FORD FOCUS RS” dated Mar 30, 2017, seen on the Blake’s Garage YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwPBelbTamY, accessed on 08/26/2023 in view of Stee (U.S. 20100147243).
In re claim 2, Blake teaches the interchangeable intake assembly of claim 1, but lacks wherein
the base member comprises:
an aperture configured to receive the automobile intake airbox; and
a perimeter surrounding the aperture,
the perimeter having at least one
fastener or aperture configured to receive a fastener.
Stee explicitly discloses
a base member (fig. 2; body structure or bolster 240; [0012]) comprises:
an aperture (fig. 1-fig. 2b-2d; generally around inlet 140; [0012]) configured to receive the automobile intake airbox (as shown in fig. 1-2d); and
a perimeter (as indicated in fig. 1, fig. 2b-2d, fig. 3b-3c) surrounding the aperture (as shown in fig. 1-2d),
the perimeter having at least one
fastener or aperture (fig. 3b-3c; mounting holes 350; [0013]) configured to receive a fastener (Mounting tabs 340 may include mounting holes 350 for receiving a fastener, which in turn may be secured to body structure 240 of radiator assembly 210; [0013]).
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure as taught by Blake, to positively incorporate a base member being defined by an aperture configured to receive and engage an automobile intake airbox, as clearly suggested and taught by Stee, in order to improve fluid dynamics of the air induction system by reducing the flow restriction at the interface between fitting 120 and body structure 240 ([0011]) and to provide a secure mounting of the airbox.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “HOW TO INSTALL BIG MOUTH RAM AIR INTAKE FORD FOCUS RS” dated Mar 30, 2017, seen on the Blake’s Garage YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwPBelbTamY, accessed on 08/26/2023.
In re claim 10, Blake teaches the interchangeable intake assembly of claim 1, but lacks wherein
the plurality of candidate bell housings comprises at least three candidate bell housings with different ornamental designs.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the plurality of candidate bell housings, of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient (including at least three candidate bell housings with different ornamental designs). A change in form or shape (such as an ornamental design) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47 and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device (such as candidate bell housings with different ornamental designs) involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In re claim 15, see claims 10 and 11, mutatis mutandis.
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 JOHN D BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 571-270-5625. 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.
/JOHN D BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
