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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakagami (US 11808224 B2) in view of Kusumi (US 20160347161 A1) and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 1, Sakagami discloses a vehicle (hybrid vehicle 10A) comprising: a battery (battery of hybrid vehicle 10A); an engine (engine 20); and a ventilation flow path (gas processing device 50 with passages 54 and 55) connected to a crank chamber (chamber 51) of the engine, wherein the ventilation flow path includes a specific portion (gas processing device 50 with passages 54 and 55). Sakagami fails to disclose a charging inlet and charging unit for the battery.
However, Kusumi discloses a hybrid vehicle (10), a charging inlet (charging inlet 18, figs.1-2); a charging unit (battery charger 20, figs.1-2) configured to convert electric power supplied to the charging inlet from an outside and supply the converted electric power to the battery to charge the battery (battery charger 20, battery pack 12, figs.1-2, paragraph [0030]), and the specific portion disposed along a surface of the charging unit (having the specific portion disposed along a surface of the charging unit would not have modified the operation of the device and would be a simple rearrangement of where the charging unit is located as disclosed by In re Japikse).
Sakagami and Kusumi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hybrid vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakagami with the charging inlet and charging unit of Kusumi with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of being able to charge the battery pack of a hybrid.
Regarding claim 2, Sakagami in combination with Kusumi and In re Japikse discloses wherein the specific portion extends along any surface of a front surface, a rear surface, a right-side surface, a left-side surface, an upper surface, and a lower surface of the charging unit (having the specific portion disposed along a surface of the charging unit would not have modified the operation of the device and would be a simple rearrangement of where the charging unit is located as disclosed by In re Japikse).
Regarding claim 3, Sakagami in combination with Kusumi and In re Japikse, Sakagami discloses wherein a Positive Crank Case Ventilation valve (positive crankcase ventilation valve 53) is provided in the ventilation flow path.
Regarding claim 4, Sakagami in combination with Kusumi and In re Japikse, Sakagami discloses wherein the ventilation flow path includes two systems of a first ventilation flow path (first passage 54) in which a Positive Crank Case Ventilation valve (positive crankcase ventilation valve 53) is provided and a second ventilation flow path (second passage 55) in which the Positive Crank Case Ventilation valve is not provided.
Regarding claim 5, Sakagami in combination with Kusumi and In re Japikse, Sakagami discloses further comprising an intake flow path (intake passage 31) that is disposed along a front surface of the charging unit (having the intake flow path disposed along a surface of the charging unit would not have modified the operation of the device and would be a simple rearrangement of where the charging unit is located as disclosed by In re Japikse) and connected to an intake port of the engine (intake passage 31 connects to intake port of engine 20), wherein: the specific portion of the ventilation flow path extends along a side surface of the charging unit (having the specific portion disposed along a surface of the charging unit would not have modified the operation of the device and would be a simple rearrangement of where the charging unit is located as disclosed by In re Japikse); and a front end of the specific portion is connected to the intake flow path (passages 54 and 55 connect to the intake flow path, fig.1).
Regarding claim 6, Sakagami in combination with Kusumi and In re Japikse, Sakagami discloses wherein the engine and the charging unit are disposed side by side along a vehicle width direction in a compartment of the vehicle (having the engine the charging side by side would not have modified the operation of the device and would be a simple rearrangement of where the charging unit is located as disclosed by In re Japikse).
Regarding claim 8, Sakagami in combination with Kusumi and In re Japikse discloses wherein the specific portion is disposed at a position overlapping the charging unit in a height direction (having the specific portion disposed at a position overlapping the charging unit would not have modified the operation of the device and would be a simple rearrangement of where the charging unit is located as disclosed by In re Japikse).
Regarding claim 9, Sakagami in combination with Kusumi and In re Japikse discloses wherein the specific portion extends to an end portion of the charging unit (having the specific portion extend to an end portion of the charging unit would not have modified the operation of the device and would be a simple rearrangement of where the charging unit is located as disclosed by In re Japikse).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumi (US 20160347161 A1), in view of Sakagami (US 11808224 B2) and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and in further view of Aoki (US 20130231811 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Sakagami in combination with Kusumi and In re Japikse disclose the vehicle of claim 1, but fail to disclose an electric power supply outlet in a vehicle cabin.
However, Aoki discloses further comprising an electric power supply outlet (receptacle 310, fig.3) disposed in a vehicle cabin of the vehicle (paragraph [0051]), wherein the charging unit is configured to execute an operation of converting electric power output from the battery and supplying the converted electric power to the electric power supply outlet (receptacle 310 uses the output electric power of battery 150, fig.3, paragraph [0050-0051]).
Sakagami and Aoki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hybrid vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakagami with the power supply outlet of Aoki with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of allowing users inside the vehicle cabin to charge electronic devices, as is well known in the art of vehicles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)-297-4337. 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights