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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-6, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the duct" in Ln. 2 of the claim. It is unclear which duct is being referenced here. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the duct will be interpreted as the first duct.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the duct" in Ln. . It is unclear which duct is being referenced here. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the duct will be interpreted as the third duct.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “with higher energy regions to either side on the vehicle body” in Ln. 3 of the claim. It is unclear what the higher energy regions are on either side of, whether the lower energy region or the vehicle body centerline. Thus, the claim language is unclear and indefinite. For purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning the higher energy regions are on either side of the lower energy regions.
Claims 12 and 13 recite the limitation “wherein the flow diverter”, in Ln. 1 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that these claims should have depended on claim 8 to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeomans et al. (WO 2013186130 A1), henceforth Yeomans.
Regarding claim 1, Yeomans discloses
a vehicle (vehicle 3, Fig. 2) comprising:
a vehicle body (vehicle body as seen in Fig. 2, the full body is visible);
a first duct (first duct 17, Fig. 3) running from a first inlet (first inlet 21, Fig. 3) to a first outlet (controlled outlet 31, Fig. 1B) to permit air flowing into the first inlet to be channelled to the first outlet (Pg. 7, Ln. 26-33 and Pg. 8, Ln. 25-37; where the air from the inlet 21 flows through the outlet channel 57 to the controlled outlet 31; as can be seen in Figs. 3-5B),
the first inlet (first inlet 21, Fig. 3) being positioned on the vehicle body (vehicle body as can be seen in Fig. 2) so that, when the vehicle (vehicle 3, Fig. 2) is in forward motion, air flows into the first inlet (as can be seen in Fig. 2), the first outlet (controlled outlet 31, Fig. 1B) being configured to direct air flowing through the first outlet in an upwards direction (as can be seen in Figs. 4B and 5B where the air flows through the outlet channel 57 through the controlled outlet 31);
and a second duct (as shown in annotated Fig. 4B below) running from an interior region of the vehicle (area around the heat transfer chamber 29/heat exchanger 45, Fig. 4B) to a second outlet (central aperture 35, Fig. 4B),
the second outlet (central aperture 35, Fig. 4B) being positioned relative to the first outlet (controlled outlet 31, Fig. 1B) on the vehicle body so that the upwards airflow causes disruption to a rearward airflow moving towards the second outlet when the vehicle is in forward motion (as shown in annotated Fig. 4B below).
PNG
media_image1.png
473
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4B from Yeomans
Regarding claim 2, Yeomans discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the first inlet (first inlet 21, Fig. 3) is oriented to channel a rearwardly moving airflow into the first duct (Pg. 10, Ln. 7-9; as can be seen in Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 3, Yeomans discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the first inlet (first inlet 21, Fig. 3) is positioned on the vehicle body (vehicle body as seen in Fig. 2) to channel a rearwardly moving airflow into the duct (first duct 17, Fig. 3) that is at a higher energy relative to the interior region of the vehicle (area around the heat transfer chamber 29/heat exchanger 45, Fig. 4B) when the vehicle is in motion (high energy rearward flowing air seen in Fig. 4B flows into the first duct 17, Pg. 10, Ln. 7-12 discloses that the air flows into an interior region of the vehicle in the heat transfer chamber 29/the heat exchanger 45, once the air is diverted into the vehicle it can be seen in Fig. 4B that the flow is not flowing completely freely in in the interior region of the vehicle, and thus it would be lower energy).
Regarding claim 4, Yeomans discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the vehicle comprises a passenger compartment (as labeled in annotated Fig. 1B below) and the first inlet (first inlet 21, Fig. 3) is positioned on a first side of the vehicle body rearwards of the passenger compartment (as shown in annotated Fig. 1B below).
PNG
media_image2.png
444
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1B from Yeomans
Regarding claim 5, Yeomans discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
the vehicle (vehicle 3, Fig. 2) comprising a third duct (second duct 19, Fig. 3) running from a third inlet (second inlet 23, Fig. 3) to the first outlet (controlled outlet 31, Fig. 1B) to permit air flowing into the third inlet to be channelled to the first outlet (Pg. 7, Ln. 26-33 and Pg. 8, Ln. 25-37; where the air from the inlet 23 flows through the outlet channel 57 to the controlled outlet 31; as can be seen in Figs. 3-5B),
the third inlet (second inlet 23, Fig. 3) being positioned on the vehicle body (vehicle body as can be seen in Fig. 2) so that, when the vehicle (vehicle 3, Fig. 2) is in forward motion, air flows into the third inlet (second inlet 23, Fig. 3), the first and third inlets (first and second inlets 21 and 23, Fig. 3) being positioned on the vehicle body to either side of a longitudinal centreline of the vehicle (as can be seen in Figs. 1B and 2);
wherein the third inlet (second inlet 23, Fig. 3) is oriented to channel a rearwardly moving airflow into the duct (interpreted as the third duct of the invention and thus would be second duct 19 of Yeomans; Pg. 10, Ln. 7-9; as can be seen in Figs. 2-3);
wherein the third inlet (second inlet 23, Fig. 3) is positioned on the vehicle body to channel a rearwardly moving airflow into the duct (second duct 19, Fig. 3) that is at a higher energy relative to the interior region of the vehicle (area around the heat transfer chamber 29/heat exchanger 45, Fig. 4B) when the vehicle is in motion (high energy rearward flowing air seen in Fig. 4B flows into the second duct 19, Pg. 10, Ln. 7-12 discloses that the air flows into an interior region of the vehicle in the heat transfer chamber 29, once the air is diverted into the vehicle it can be seen in Fig. 4B that the flow is not flowing completely freely in in the interior region of the vehicle, and thus it would be lower energy);
and wherein the vehicle (vehicle 3, Fig. 2) comprises a passenger compartment (as labeled in annotated Fig. 1B above) and the third inlet (second inlet 23, Fig. 3) is positioned on a second side of the vehicle body, opposite to the first side, rearwards of the passenger compartment (as shown in annotated Fig. 1B above).
Regarding claim 15, Yeomans discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the second duct (as shown in annotated Fig. 4B above) runs from an interior region of the vehicle to a second outlet (central aperture 35, Fig. 4B) to permit air flowing from the interior region (area around the heat transfer chamber 29/heat exchanger 45, Fig. 4B) to be channelled to the second outlet (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 4B above).
Regarding claim 16, Yeomans discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the first outlet (controlled outlet 31, Fig. 1B) and the second outlet (central aperture 35, Fig. 4B) are positioned along a longitudinal centreline of the vehicle (as can be seen in Figs. 1B and 2).
Regarding claim 17, Yeomans discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the interior region (area around the heat transfer chamber 29/heat exchanger 45, Fig. 4B) of the vehicle is a powertrain bay (heat transfer chamber 29/heat exchanger 45, Fig. 4B; forms part of a powertrain bay).
Regarding claim 20, Yeomans discloses
a vehicle (vehicle 3, Fig. 2) comprising:
a vehicle body (vehicle body as seen in Fig. 2, the full body is visible);
a first duct (first duct 17, Fig. 3) running from a first inlet (first inlet 21, Fig. 3) to a first outlet (controlled outlet 31, Fig. 1B) to permit air flowing into the first inlet to be channelled to the first outlet (Pg. 7, Ln. 26-33 and Pg. 8, Ln. 25-37; where the air from the inlet 21 flows through the outlet channel 57 to the controlled outlet 31; as can be seen in Figs. 3-5B),
the first inlet (first inlet 21, Fig. 3) being positioned on the vehicle body (vehicle body as can be seen in Fig. 2) so that, when the vehicle (vehicle 3, Fig. 2) is in forward motion, air flows into the first inlet (as can be seen in Fig. 2), the first outlet (controlled outlet 31, Fig. 1B) being configured to direct air flowing through the first outlet away from the vehicle body (as can be seen in Figs. 4B and 5B where the air flows through the outlet channel 57 through the controlled outlet 31 away from the vehicle body upwards);
and a second duct (as shown in annotated Fig. 4B below) running from an interior region of the vehicle (area around the heat transfer chamber 29/heat exchanger 45, Fig. 4B) to a second outlet (central aperture 35, Fig. 4B),
the second outlet (central aperture 35, Fig. 4B) being positioned relative to the first outlet (controlled outlet 31, Fig. 1B) on the vehicle body so that the airflow from the first outlet causes disruption to an airflow moving towards the second outlet when the vehicle is in forward motion (as shown in annotated Fig. 4B above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 6 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation of wherein the upwards airflow causes disruption to the rearward airflow to generate a lower energy region over the second outlet with higher energy regions to either side on the vehicle body. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Yeomans et al. (WO 2013186130 A1), henceforth Yeomans, which teaches all the limitations of the claim but does not teach the higher and lower energy regions generated by the airflow with the higher energy regions on the sides of the lower energy regions in the middle. These deficiencies in Yeomans are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art.
Claims 7- 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 primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 7-13 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation of the first outlet comprises second regions to either side of the first region in which the first outlet is configured to direct air flowing through the first outlet in a rearwards direction over the vehicle body. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Yeomans et al. (WO 2013186130 A1), henceforth Yeomans, which teaches all the limitations of the claim except for the first and second regions of air flow out of the first outlet with different air flow functions. These deficiencies in Yeomans are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 14 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation of wherein an air flow exiting the second outlet is at a lower energy relative to the air flow exiting the first outlet when the vehicle is in motion. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Yeomans et al. (WO 2013186130 A1), henceforth Yeomans, which teaches all the limitations of the claim except for the energy difference in the air flow out of the first and second outlets. These deficiencies in Yeomans are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 18-19 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation of the first and second outlets are positioned above the housing and the first and second outlets are positioned rearwards of the moveable cover. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Yeomans et al. (WO 2013186130 A1), henceforth Yeomans, which teaches all the limitations of the claim, but does not teach the retractable roof. It was contemplated by the examiner to combine with Slight et al. (US Patent Application 20220260002 A1), henceforth Slight, which teaches the retractable roof with a housing and movable cover for the housing. However, Slight does not teach 2 outlets that are positioned above the housing and rearwards of the cover, though it does teach 1 such outlet. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art anyways to make this combination of references, due to the combination of references not being reasonable. These deficiencies in Yeomans and Slight are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited but not relied upon disclose other similar vehicle duct systems with multiple ducts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel G Chen whose telephone number is (571)272-9669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/D.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
