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 Status
Claims 1-6 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osaka (JP2009085008A) hereinafter Osaka.
Claim 1:
Osaka discloses an air intake duct for a motor vehicle [Fig. 6, Item 80], comprising: a resonator [82] having an outer wall defining an internal space [83]; at least one drain hole [832] configured as a penetrating channel through a bottom surface of the outer wall [831]; and a thick portion disposed at least around a periphery of the drain hole, the thick portion increasing a length of the penetrating channel [the portion of 832 that connects to the hose 84].
Claim 2:
Osaka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Osaka also discloses wherein the penetrating channel includes a port having a radius [hose 84 connects to drain hole 832; a hose is commonly known as a hollow tube].
Claim 3:
Osaka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Osaka also discloses wherein the length of the penetrating channel is approximately twice a thickness of the outer wall [832; while drawings can't be relied upon for scale the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977) (see MPEP 2125). Fig. 6 clearly shows a thicker portion on the bottom which is APPROXIMATELY twice as thick as the outer wall].
Claim 6:
Osaka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Osaka also discloses wherein the length of the penetrating channel is approximately twice a thickness of the outer wall [832; while drawings can't be relied upon for scale the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977) (see MPEP 2125). Fig. 6 clearly shows a thicker portion on the bottom which is APPROXIMATELY twice as thick as the outer wall].
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakagawa (US 5,723,828) hereinafter Nakagawa.
Claim 4:
Osaka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Osaka doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising a plurality of additional resonators arranged on a side of the air intake duct, and wherein each additional resonator that includes a water drain has a single water drain hole located at one end of the additional resonator.
However, Nakagawa does disclose further comprising a plurality of additional resonators arranged on a side of the air intake duct, and wherein each additional resonator that includes a water drain has a single water drain hole located at one end of the additional resonator. [Figs. 2a, 2b; Items 11b, 11b'; col. 7 line 61 to col 8 line 12]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the air intake duct and resonator of Osaka with the multiple resonators of Nakagawa to absorb sounds of difference frequencies thus reducing noise further.
Claim 5:
Osaka and Nakagawa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Osaka also discloses wherein an additional thick portion is provided only on the additional resonator in which the presence of the water drain hole causes a higher resonance sound [per ¶¶5-6 the drain hole causes leaks to the outside causing air pressure in the resonance chamber 82 to fluctuate, therefore, all the presence of a drain hole always causes the issue and all drain holes need the thicker portion to attach a hose to prevent the leak].
Examiner Recommendation
The Examiner recommends incorporating subject matter from the Specification to overcome the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oba (US 2004/0250785 A1) discloses a resonator with a drain hole with varying shapes and locations within a vessel.
Khouw (US 2010/0050578 A1) discloses a series of drain holes on an automotive intake.
Hwang (US 2012/018107 A1) discloses a series of resonators for a turbocharger (a common component in engine intakes) where there are multiple resonators of different sizes and shapes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 PM.
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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights