DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/15/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1-2 & 17-20 has/have been amended, claim(s) 3 has/have been cancelled, and new claim(s) 21 has/have been added. Thus, claims 1-2 and 4-21 are presently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/07/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final Office action on 04/15/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKASUGI (DE 102014018765 A1).
NAKASUGI ‘765 discloses the invention as follows:
An air inlet assembly (e.g., inlet system body 5; fig. 1-9, 11 & 13-14) of an engine 1, comprising:
an air inlet manifold 27 (fig. 2-6; “As it is in 2 to 6 shown is the wide intake tract 27 from an upper end portion of the narrow intake tract 26 branched to extend substantially in the left-and-right direction. As it is in 4 Shown are a plurality of connection openings 27a that the inlet openings 1b the respective cylinder 1a correspond, in the wide intake tract 27 opened, and by attaching the inlet system body 5 on the engine 1 communicates the wide intake system 27 with the respective cylinders 1a through the connection openings 27a. The downstream intake tract, which has a substantially T-shape, is through the narrow and the wide intake tract 26 and 27 educated. As it is in 5 and 6 is shown, is the first gas inlet opening 18 in the narrow intake tract 26 formed, and the high-pressure EGR gas is with the intake air inside the narrow intake 26 mixed.”);
an intercooler 40 (fig. 5-7, 9 & 13-14; “The intercooler 40 is a cube-shaped structural body having a flow path therein where heat exchange with the intake air is performed, and the intercooler 40 is housed in the interior S. The interior S is through the intercooler 40 in an intake air intake chamber 22 into which uncooled intake air flows, and an intake air discharge chamber 23 divided, flows from the cooled intake air.”) having a first air inlet (e.g., introductory section 21; fig. 9) and an air outlet 25 (fig. 2-3, 5-6 & 8; “As it is in 2 . 3 . 5 . 6 and 8th is shown is the connecting portion 25 with the narrow intake tract 26, which extends substantially upwardly as it moves along the top of the chamber space 20 curves and narrows the passage area as compared to the chamber space 20 is.”), and the air outlet 23 directly attached to and being in communication with the air inlet manifold 27 (fig. 5-6); and
a throttle valve 50 (fig. 9; “As it is in 9 is shown is the valve unit 50 adjacent to or adjacent to the introduction section 21 provided and with the second intake pipe 2 B connected. The valve unit 50 contains the coupling passage or tract 51 (which forms the upstream intake duct) having a cylindrical shape and between the introduction portion 21 and the second intake pipe 2B intervenes, a valve body 52 (Throttle valve), which is a circular plate and is mounted so that it is inside the coupling tract 51 is rotatable, and a valve control unit 53 for controlling the rotation of the valve body 52 , The valve unit 50 changes an opening of the Intake tract by controlling the rotation of the valve body 52 to adjust an introduction amount of intake air into the chamber space 20 flows.”) disposed on the first air inlet 21 to control an air inflow amount.
NAKASUGI ‘765 discloses the invention as essentially claimed; however, NAKASUGI is completely silent with respect to wherein a gas storage capacity of the intercooler 40 body 20 is from about 1200 ml to about 1300 ml.
In intercooler / charge-air-cooler design for a cooling system, a designer can manipulate many parameters such as cooler size, gas storage capacity and efficiency, and strength in order to optimize cost and space available to achieve the desired air flow. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This holds especially true for the charge-air-cooler / intercooler art as other parameters can make up for specific limitations such as gas storage capacity.
Based on the discussion above, it would have been an obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to specify the gas storage capacity of NAKASUGI ‘765 to have a gas storage capacity from about 1200 ml to about 1300 ml., in order to optimize cost and space available to achieve the desired gas cooling efficiency.
2. The air inlet assembly according to claim 1, wherein the intercooler 40 (fig. 5-7, 9 & 13-14) comprises:
an air inlet cavity 22; and
an air outlet cavity 23, the intercooler body 20 disposed between the air inlet cavity 22 and the air outlet cavity 23, and being in communication with the air inlet cavity 22 and the air outlet cavity 23, the first air inlet 21 disposed on the air inlet cavity 22, and the air outlet 25 disposed on the air outlet cavity 23.
4. The air inlet assembly according to claim 2, wherein the air inlet cavity 22 comprises a first air inlet section 241 (see annotated fig. 9 below for illustration), a second air inlet section 242, and a third air inlet section 243 that are in communication with each other, the first air inlet section 241 is in communication with the first air inlet 21, and the third air inlet section 243 is in communication with the intercooler body 20, to guide gas into the intercooler body 20.
5. The air inlet assembly according to claim 4, wherein a cross-sectional area of the third air inlet section 243 is greater than a cross-sectional area of the first air inlet section 241, and a cross-sectional area of the second air inlet section 242 increases from the first air inlet section 241 to the third air inlet section 243.
7. The air inlet assembly according to claim 2, wherein the air outlet cavity 23 (see annotated fig. 13 below for illustration) comprises a first air outlet section 251, a second air outlet section 252, and a third air outlet section 253 that are in communication with each other, the first air outlet section 251 is in communication with the air outlet 25, and the third air outlet section 253 is in communication with the intercooler body 20, to guide gas into the air inlet manifold 27.
8. The air inlet assembly according to claim 7, wherein a cross-sectional area of the third air outlet section 253 is less than a cross-sectional area of the first air outlet section 251, and a cross-sectional area of the second air outlet section 252 decreases from the first air outlet section 251 to the third air outlet section 253.
11. The air inlet assembly according to claim 2, wherein a plurality of reinforcing ribs (see fig. 2-4 and 8-9) are disposed on outer walls of the air inlet cavity 22 and/or the air outlet cavity 23, and are staggered.
12. The air inlet assembly according to claim 2, wherein the intercooler body 20 comprises a cooling channel 42 (fig. 9; “The intercooler 40 is in the chamber room 20 housed and cools the intake air, which enters the chamber space 20 flows. The intercooler 40 is water-cooled, and cooling water (coolant) is supplied by the water pump 41 in the intercooler 40 over a cooling tube 42 fed while it circulates.”), and the intercooler body 40 comprises a water inlet pipe connector (one of 42) in communication with a first end of the cooling channel and a water outlet pipe connector (the other of 42) in communication with a second end of the cooling channel.
17. The air inlet assembly according to claim 13, wherein the pressure stabilizing cavity 110 (see fig. 13) comprises:
an impact grid
a plurality of flow guiding baffles (e.g., baffle plates 28, 31) disposed in the pressure stabilizing cavity 110 and configured to guide condensed water in the pressure stabilizing cavity 110 to the air inlet passage 120 (fig. 13 below; “The baffle plate 28 starts from the condensed water coming from the intercooler 40 is generated, and the residual liquid in the lower part of the chamber space 20 held, the liquid droplets, which are caught by the intake air, and the second baffle plate 31 , which is downstream of the baffle plate 28 is provided in the flow direction, liquid drops that are not from the baffle 28 can be captured. Thus, the capturing amount can be increased. This is particularly effective when capturing the condensed water that is at an upper part of the charge air cooler 40 liable.”).
18. The air inlet assembly according to claim 17, wherein:
plurality of flow guiding baffles extends toward plurality of the air inlet passages and configured to guide condensed water in the pressure stabilizing cavity to the plurality of air inlet passages (“The baffle plate 28 starts from the condensed water coming from the intercooler 40 is generated, and the residual liquid in the lower part of the chamber space 20 held, the liquid droplets, which are caught by the intake air, and the second baffle plate 31 , which is downstream of the baffle plate 28 is provided in the flow direction, liquid drops that are not from the baffle 28 can be captured. Thus, the capturing amount can be increased. This is particularly effective when capturing the condensed water that is at an upper part of the charge air cooler 40 liable.”).
Re claim 6, NAKASUGI ‘765 discloses the invention as essentially claimed including wherein a space between a front side wall and a rear side wall of the second air inlet section 242 increases from right to left, an angle α (see angle “a” in annotated fig. 9 below) between the front side wall and the rear side wall of the second air inlet section 242; however, NAKASUGI is completely silent with respect to the angle alpha “a” being from about 50° to about 70°. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the angle dimensions for the angle alpha “a” as claimed because it has been held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final applications.
Re claim 9, NAKASUGI ‘765 discloses the invention as essentially claimed including wherein a space between a front side wall and a rear side wall of the second air outlet section 252 decreases from right to left, an angle β (see angle Beta “B” in annotated fig. 13 below) between the rear side wall of the second air outlet section 252 and a cross-section of the air outlet cavity 23; however, NAKASUGI is completely silent with respect to the angle Beta “B” being from about 20° to about 40°. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the angle dimensions for the angle Beta “B” as claimed because it has been held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final applications.
Re claim 10, NAKASUGI ‘765 discloses the invention as essentially claimed including wherein a space between an upper side wall and a lower side wall of the second air outlet section 252 (see annotated fig. 13 below) decreases from right to left, an angle γ (see angle “G” in annotated fig. 13 below) between the upper side wall and the lower side wall of the second air outlet section 252; however, NAKASUGI is completely silent with respect to the angle γ being from about 25° to about 35°. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the angle dimensions for the angle γ as claimed because it has been held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final applications.
Re claim 13, NAKASUGI ‘765 discloses the invention as essentially claimed including wherein the air inlet manifold 27 (see annotated fig. 13 below) comprises a pressure stabilizing cavity 110 and an air inlet passage 120, a first end of the air inlet passage 120 is in communication with the pressure stabilizing cavity 110, a second end of the air inlet passage 120 is in communication with an engine cylinder block, a bottom wall of the air inlet passage 120 comprises a first wall section 121, the first wall section 121 is connected to a bottom wall of the pressure stabilizing cavity 110 and is disposed obliquely downward with respect to the bottom wall of the pressure stabilizing cavity 110, an angle δ (see angle “F” in annotated fig. 13 below) is formed between the first wall section 121 and the bottom wall of the pressure stabilizing cavity 110; however, NAKASUGI is completely silent with respect to the angle δ being from about 2° to about 5°. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the angle dimensions for the angle δ as claimed because it has been held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final applications.
Re claim 14, NAKASUGI ‘765 discloses the invention as essentially claimed including wherein the bottom wall of the air inlet passage 120 (see annotated fig. 13 below) further comprises: a second wall section 122 connected to a side of the first wall section 121 away from the pressure stabilizing cavity 110 and disposed obliquely downward with respect to the first wall section 121, and an angle ε (see angle “E” in annotated fig. 13 below) formed between the second wall section 122 and the first wall section 121; however, NAKASUGI is completely silent with respect to the angle ε being from about 24° to about 26°. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the angle dimensions for the angle ε as claimed because it has been held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final applications.
Re claims 15-16, NAKASUGI ‘765 discloses the invention as essentially claimed; however, NAKASUGI is completely silent with respect to wherein a volume of the pressure stabilizing cavity 100 is from about 1 L to about 1.2 L, and wherein a length L of the air inlet passage is about 70 mm to about 80 mm.
In intercooler / charge-air-cooler design for a cooling system, a designer can manipulate many parameters such as cooler size, gas storage capacity and efficiency, and strength in order to optimize cost and space available to achieve the desired air flow. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This holds especially true for the charge-air-cooler / intercooler art as other parameters can make up for specific limitations such as volume of the pressure stabilizing cavity and length of air inlet passage.
Based on the discussion above, it would have been an obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to specify the pressure stabilizing cavity volume and air inlet passage length of NAKASUGI ‘765 to have a volume from about 1 L to about 1.2 L., and length from about 70 mm to about 80 mm, in order to optimize cost and space available to achieve the desired gas cooling efficiency.
With regards to claim(s) 21, the claim(s) is/are commensurate in scope with claim(s) 2 and 17-18, and is/are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKASUGI ‘765 in view of LARSSON (WO 9711267 A1).
Re claims 19-20, NAKASUGI ‘765 discloses the invention as essentially claimed in claim 1 including a vehicle (implicit) and a mounting bracket (i.e., as shown in figure 4, but un-referenced) connected to the intercooler 40, and that the intercooler 40 is disposed below the air inlet manifold 27. NAKASUGI does not teach that the intercooler disposed above the air inlet manifold. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to dispose the intercooler above the air inlet manifold, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
However, NAKASUGI ‘765 fails to explicitly teach that the mounting bracket is disposed on the cylinder head.
The patent application to LARSSON ‘267 teaches a similar intercooler mounting system for an ICE. Specifically, LARSSON teaches the following: “In the drawing, the reference notation 10 denotes schematically a charge air cooler placed between the inlet pipe 7 and the inlet duct 6. The charge air cooler 10 should be placed as close to the cylinder head 3 as possible and it is advantageous for it to be mounted directly on the cylinder head 3. This creates the possibility of the exhaust gases being initially cooled when they flow backwards in towards the inlet pipe 7 and being thereafter cooled again when they flow back in towards the combustion chamber. In addition, the combustion air fed to the cylinder 1 via the inlet line is cooled conventionally by the charge air cooler 10.”.
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have disposed the mounting bracket of NAKASUGI ‘765 on the cylinder head, as clearly suggested and taught by LARSSON, since the disposition would allow for a much more efficient cooling of the inlet flow towards the inlet passages of the air inlet manifold.
PNG
media_image1.png
1292
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1004
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Firstly, the Applicant argues that it is not obvious that Nakasugi teach or suggest “a gas storage capacity of the intercooler body is configured in a range of 1200-1300ml since the prior art does not teach any specific gas storage capacity V1 value at all. See pg. 9. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion. Again, as explicitly stated in the above rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 19-20, that in intercooler / charge-air-cooler designs for vehicle cooling systems, any person with ordinary skill in the art can manipulate many parameters such as cooler size, gas storage capacity and efficiency, and strength in order to optimize cost and space available to achieve the desired air flow. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This holds especially true for the charge-air-cooler / intercooler art as other parameters can make up for specific limitations such as gas storage capacity. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching or suggestion for the storage capacity V1 value by the prior art, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, based on the discussion above, it would have been an obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to specify the gas storage capacity of NAKASUGI ‘765 to have a gas storage capacity from about 1200 ml to about 1300 ml., in order to optimize cost and space available to achieve the desired gas cooling efficiency, as now claimed in claims 1 & 19-20.
Secondly, the Applicant argues that the air outlet 25, 23 is not “directly” attached to and being in communication with the air inlet manifold 27. Applicant argues that since the intermediate narrow intake tract 26 is between the intercooler’s air outlet 25 and the air inlet manifold 27, the air outlet 25 is therefore not directly attached to the air inlet manifold 27. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion as well. Note, as cited above and explicitly disclosed by Nakasugi: “…in the wide intake tract 27 opened, and by attaching the inlet system body 5 on the engine 1 communicates the wide intake system 27 with the respective cylinders 1a through the connection openings 27a. The downstream intake tract, which has a substantially T-shape, is through the narrow and the wide intake tract 26 and 27”. In other words, the intermediate narrow intake tract 26 is clearly disclosed to be a portion of this air inlet manifold 27 since the manifold 27 has a substantially T-shape which includes 26 & 27. Thus, based on this understanding, the Examiner is interpreting this tract 26 to be a portion of the claimed inlet manifold 27. Since the air outlet 23, 25 of the intercooler is “directly” attached to this tract 26, which is a part of this T-shaped air inlet manifold 27, the Examiner argues that the air outlet 23, 25 is “directly” attached to and being in communication with the air inlet manifold 27, as now required by claims 1 & 19-20.
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 HUNG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5424. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7am-4pm (CT).
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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.
HUNG Q. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights