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, Amendments
Applicant is thanked for their December 4, 2025 response to the Office Action filed August 6, 2025. In particular, Applicant is thanked for their amendments to Claim 15, rendering the previous objections thereto withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 9 and 14 – 21 have been considered, and inasmuch as they pertain to prior art still being relied upon, the examiner’s response follows below. Respectfully, any arguments/ remarks directed towards newly amended limitations are moot if they resulted in a new ground(s) of rejection.
In their remarks, Applicant stated that they “understood Examiner Hamilton to agree that the cited references do not disclose, teach, or suggest the above limitations1.” It is respectfully noted that the examiner’s remark was based on the proposed amendment provided for discussion during the September 10, 2025 interview. However, amended claim 1 filed December 4, 2025 is not the same as the claim 1 discussed during the interview.
In response to the 35 USC §102(a)(2) rejection of:
claims 1 – 3, and 14 – 16 as being unpatentable over Di et al (CN 110701772); and
claims 1, 12, and 15 as being unpatentable over He et al (CN 207555772);
Applicant remarked that “During the interview, Applicant understood Examiner HAMILTON to agree that the cited references do not disclose, teach, or suggest the above limitations. Thus, claim 1, as amended, has not been shown to be anticipated by or obvious over the cited references.”
Respectfully, the examiner notes that “second operation mode group” of amended claim 1 incorporates some of the limitations from claims 7 and 8, but neither Di et al (CN 110701772) nor He et al (CN 207555772) were relied upon to teach that the limitations of former claims 7 and 8 were known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Applicant’s argument has merit, and the rejection of claims 1 – 3, 14 – 16 and 1, 12, and 15 as being unpatentable over Di et al and/or He et al has been withdrawn.
In response to the 35 USC §102(a)(1) rejection of:
claims 1, 5 – 9, 14, and 21 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 107781962), and
claims 1, 4 – 7, and 14 as being unpatentable over Peng et al (CN 107314453)
Applicant remarked that “During the interview, Applicant understood Examiner HAMILTON to agree that the cited references do not disclose, teach, or suggest the above limitations. Thus, claim 1, as amended, has not been shown to be anticipated by or obvious over the cited references.”
Respectfully, the examiner notes that, as discussed on September 10, 2025, Applicant’s argument has merit, and the rejection of claims 1, 5 – 9, 14 and 21 as being unpatentable over Peng, and the rejection of claims 1, 4 – 7, and 14 as being unpatentable over Peng et al has been withdrawn.
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of:
claim 1 as being unpatentable over Ma et al (CN 107702202);
claim 3 as being unpatentable over Ma et al (CN 107702202), in view of Okamoto et al (US 2016/0363343);
claim 16 as being unpatentable He et al (CN 207555772), in view of Zhang et al (CN 105509284);
claims 17 – 20 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 1077081962), in view of Okamoto et al (US 2016/0363343);
Applicant remarked that “During the interview, Applicant understood Examiner HAMILTON to agree that the cited references do not disclose, teach, or suggest the above limitations. Thus, claim 1, as amended, has not been shown to be anticipated by or obvious over the cited references.”
Respectfully, the examiner notes that, as discussed on September 10, 2025, Applicant’s argument has merit, and the rejection of claims 1, 3, 16, and 17 – 20 as being unpatentable over Ma et al (CN 107702202), in view of Okamoto et al (US 2016/0363343); and/or He et al (CN 207555772), in view of Zhang et al (CN 105509284); and/or Peng (CN 1077081962), in view of Okamoto et al (US 2016/0363343) been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
In re Claims 1 – 4, 6, 8, 9, and 14 – 24:
the limitation “block”2 has been interpreted as “restrict”
the limitation “closed” has been interpreted as “occluded”
The examiner’s interpretation aligns with Applicant’s disclosure, as airflow passes through a “breezeless member” and through an “outer deflector” when they are in a “closed position where (it) blocks an air outlet”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
As explained in MPEP §2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f):
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. §112(f), is invoked.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
In re Claim 1, the claim limitation(s) is/are: “a breezeless member configured to scatter air” has been interpreted as an element in a claim expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification discloses that the corresponding structure of a “breezeless member” comprises:
an air-scattering device 22 and an air-scattering plate 21, wherein the air-scattering device 22 is located at an inner side of the air-scattering plate 21.
The air-scattering plate 21 has a first air-scattering structure 211, capable of scattering the airflow. The first air-scattering structure 211 is a plurality of air-scattering holes; or is a grid form having a hollow structure.
The air-scattering device 22 includes a mounting plate 221, a first air-scattering mechanism 222 [0079], and a limiting plate 23 connected between the mounting plate 221 and the air-scattering plate 21 [0080].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), applicant may:
(1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
(2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for a patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application. as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filed date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 17, and 21 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Di et al (CN 110319569).
In re Claim 1, Di et al (‘569) discloses an air-conditioning indoor unit comprising:
a surface frame (1) comprising an air inlet (14) and a first air outlet (annotated, below), wherein the first air outlet is defined on a front lower part of the surface frame;
PNG
media_image1.png
496
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a breezeless member (2) configured to scatter air (via structure (20)) passing therethrough, arranged at a front side of the surface frame (as seen in fig 5), and configured to move between an open position (figs 2 – 4, 8 – 10) where the breezeless member does not block a front side of the first air outlet and a closed position (figs 1, 5 – 7, 11) where the breezeless member blocks the front side of the first air outlet;
an outer deflector (3) configured to move between one or more open positions (figs 2, 3, 8, and 9) where the outer deflector does not block a bottom side of the first air outlet and a closed position (figs 1, 4 – 7, 10, and 11) where the outer deflector blocks a bottom side of the first air outlet;
a heat exchanger (7) disposed within the surface frame; and
a fan (seen in the figures) disposed within the surface frame,
wherein the air-conditioning indoor unit is configured to operate in:
a first operation mode group (figs 2, 3, 8, and 9) where the breezeless member (2) is in the open position and the outer deflector (3) is in one of the open positions: and
a second operation mode group (figs 1, 5 – 7, and 11) where the breezeless member (2) is in the closed position and the outer deflector (3) is in one of the open positions or the closed position (figs 1, 5 – 7, and 11).
In re Claim 3, Di et al (‘569) discloses wherein:
a panel (annotated, below) is disposed at the front side of the surface frame (1);
a receiving chamber (12) is defined between the panel and the surface frame; and
the breezeless member (2) is disposed within the receiving chamber when the breezeless member is in the open position.
PNG
media_image2.png
344
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re Claims 4 and 22, Di et al (‘569) discloses
wherein when the air-conditioning indoor unit is in an OFF state, the outer deflector is in the closed position (fig 10: (3)), the breezeless member is in the closed position (fig 10: (2))3; and
wherein when the air-conditioning indoor unit is in an OFF state, wherein the breezeless member (2) abuts the outer deflector (2) at the front side of the first air outlet (as seen in fig 10)4.
5. (Canceled)
In re Claim 6, Di et al (‘569) discloses wherein the first operation mode group5 (figs 2, 3, 8, and 9) comprises at least one of:
a first operation mode where the bottom side of the first air outlet is partially opened by the outer deflector; or
a second operation mode where air blown from the first air outlet is guided downwardly by moving and positioning the outer deflector (figs 2, 8: (3)) at the front side of the first air outlet.
In re Claim 8, Di et al (‘569) discloses wherein the second operation mode group6 (figs 1, 5 – 7, and 11) comprises at least one of:
a third operation mode where the bottom side of the first air outlet is closed by the outer deflector; or
a fourth operation mode where the outer deflector (figs 1, 6: (3)) has one end abutting the breezeless member (2) and another end spaced apart from the bottom of the surface frame to partially open the bottom side of the first air outlet.
In re Claim 9, Di et al (‘569) discloses wherein the outer deflector (3) is configured to rotate between the closed position (figs 4, 10) and the one or more open positions(figs 1 – 3 and 5 – 9).
Claim 10 – 13 have been withdrawn
In re Claim 17, Di et al (‘569) discloses wherein the outer deflector is configured to move via a first drive motor disposed on the surface frame or on a base of the air-conditioning indoor unit.
PNG
media_image3.png
343
399
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 21, Di et al (‘569) discloses an air conditioner (Abstract) comprising the air-conditioning indoor unit according to claim 1.
In re Claim 23, Di et al (‘569) discloses wherein, when the air- conditioning indoor unit is operating in the second operation mode group, the breezeless member (2) abuts the outer deflector (3) (as seen in fig 1).
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 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Di et al (CN 110319569) in view of Di et al (CN 110701772)7.
In re Claim 2, the system of Di et al (‘569) has been discussed, but lacks wherein the surface frame (1) further comprises a second air outlet defined on at least one of a left end or a right end of the surface frame.
Di et al (‘772) teaches a surface frame (fig 1: (1)) of an air conditioner indoor unit, comprising:
an air inlet (15);
a first air outlet (21), wherein the first air outlet is defined on a front lower part of the surface frame; and
at least one second air outlet (12) (as seen in fig 1, a second air outlet is defined on the left end and on the right end of the surface frame) (pg 8/256)
PNG
media_image4.png
207
1031
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Di et al (‘569) as taught by Di et al (‘772), such that the system comprises a second air outlet defined on at least one of a left end or a right end of the surface frame, for the benefit of “making the air output more comfortable”.
In re Claims 14 – 16, the system of Di et al (‘569) has been discussed but is silent as to whether the breezeless member comprises:
an air-scattering plate; and
an air-scattering device disposed on the air-scattering plate and located on an inner side of the air-scattering plate, the air-scattering plate comprises a first air-scattering structure, and the air-scattering device comprises:
a mounting plate having a plurality of first ventilation holes and connected to the air-scattering plate; and
a first air-scattering mechanism disposed within the plurality of first ventilation holes and comprising at least one of a first stationary blade or a first rotatable blade, the first stationary blade being opposite to the first rotatable blade.
Di et al (‘772) teaches (figs 1 – 9) wherein a breezeless member (figs 1 – 9: (2, 3) comprises:
an air-scattering plate (21); and
an air-scattering device (31/32/34) disposed on the air-scattering plate (21) and located on an inner side of the air-scattering plate (as seen in fig 1),
the air-scattering plate (21) comprises a first air-scattering structure (31/32/34), and
the air-scattering device comprises:
a mounting plate (33) having a plurality of first ventilation holes (331) and connected to the air-scattering plate (21); and
a first air-scattering mechanism (31/32) disposed within the plurality of first ventilation holes and comprising at least one of a first stationary blade (321) or a first rotatable blade (311), the first stationary blade being opposite to the first rotatable blade (as seen in fig 9).
wherein the outer deflector (23) comprises a second air-scattering structure (21) (as seen in fig 7)8;
wherein the second air-scattering structure (21) comprises a plurality of air-scattering holes [0072] formed on the outer deflector (23); or
“In some embodiments of the invention, the bottom plate 23 is provided with a plurality of exhausting holes 21. multiple air exhausting holes That is, air conditioner 1000 from being blown through the structure 3 after distribution, a portion of the front side plate 22 flows in 21, another portion 21 flows out from the bottom plate 23 a plurality of exhausting holes, so as to realize multi-direction air outlet of the air conditioner 1000.” [0072]
the outer deflector is formed in a grid form having a hollow structure as the second air-scattering structure; or
the second air-scattering structure comprises a plurality of second ventilation holes formed on the outer deflector and a plurality of second air-scattering mechanisms respectively disposed in the plurality of second ventilation holes, each of the plurality of second air-scattering mechanisms comprising at least one of a second stationary blade or a second rotatable blade, the second stationary blade being opposite to the second rotatable blade.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Di et al (‘569) as taught by Di et al (‘772), such that the breezeless member comprises:
an air-scattering plate; and
an air-scattering device disposed on the air-scattering plate and located on an inner side of the air-scattering plate, the air-scattering plate comprises a first air-scattering structure, and the air-scattering device comprises:
a mounting plate having a plurality of first ventilation holes and connected to the air-scattering plate; and
a first air-scattering mechanism disposed within the plurality of first ventilation holes and comprising at least one of a first stationary blade or a first rotatable blade, the first stationary blade being opposite to the first rotatable blade;
wherein the outer deflector comprises a second air-scattering structure9; and
wherein the second air-scattering structure comprises a plurality of air-scattering holes formed on the outer deflector10;
for the benefit of “improving the comfort of the air conditioner”.
Claims 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Di et al (CN 110319569) in view of Okamoto et al (US 2016/0363343)
In re Claims 18 and 19, the system of Di et al (‘569) has been discussed,
wherein the surface frame has an air outlet passage (10) in communication with the first air outlet.
wherein the air-conditioning indoor unit further comprises a rotation flow guide (figs 1, 2: (5)) provided in the air outlet passage and configured to rotate, via a second drive motor (apparent) disposed on the surface frame or on a base of the air-conditioning indoor unit, to direct a volume of air blown from the air outlet passage towards one or more of the front side (fig 1) or bottom side (fig 2) of the first air outlet; and
wherein the rotation flow guide (5) comprises an inner deflector (annotated below) that is rotatable about a rotation axis located at or close to a middle of the inner deflector; or
PNG
media_image5.png
358
570
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the rotation flow guide device comprises:
an inner deflector that is rotatable, and
a louver disposed on the inner deflector.
However, Di et al (‘569) is silent as to whether:
the deflector is driven by a first drive motor disposed on the surface frame or on a base of the air- conditioning indoor unit; and
a second drive motor is disposed on the surface frame or on a base of the air-conditioning indoor unit for driving the rotation flow guide device to rotate.
However, such a technique is known in the art, as evidenced by Okamoto et al.
Okamoto et al teaches an indoor air conditioning unit (figs 1A, 1B), wherein the air-conditioning indoor unit comprising an air inlet (23), and air outlet (27), the air outlet port comprising a deflector (fig 4: (50)) driven by a first drive motor (51), a rotation flow guide (fig 4: (52)) driven by a second drive motor (53) [0061].
➢ Please note that although the motors are not shown in figure 4, it has been understood that they are disposed on a surface frame or on a base of the air conditioning unit.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Di et al (‘569) as taught by Okamoto et al, such that the system comprises:
a first drive motor disposed on the surface frame or on a base of the air-conditioning indoor unit, and
a second drive motor disposed on the surface frame or on a base of the air-conditioning indoor unit for driving the rotation flow guide device to rotate,
as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest.
In re Claim 20, the proposed system has been discussed, the proposed system has been discussed, but is silent as to whether, when the air-conditioning indoor unit is in an OFF state, the rotation flow guide is further configured to rotate to block an air outlet end of the air outlet.
Okamoto et al teaches wherein when the air-conditioning indoor unit (1) is in an OFF state (fig 1A), an air outlet end of the air outlet passage (fig 13: (27)) is closed by the rotation flow guide device (figs 4: (52)) rotating to block the air outlet end, during operation stop of the indoor unit (1).[0058, 0060].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed system, as taught by Okamoto et al, such that the system comprises, when the air-conditioning indoor unit is in an OFF state, the rotation flow guide is further configured to rotate to block an air outlet end of the air outlet, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frances F. Hamilton (she/her) whose telephone number is 571.270.5726. The examiner can normally be reached on M – F; 9 – 6.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on 571.272.6460. 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, please visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For more information about Patent Center, please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center and for information about filing in DOCX format please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you are a Pro Se inventor and would like assistance, please call the Pro Se assistance center at 866.767.3848. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, please call 800.786.9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571.272.1000.
/Frances F Hamilton/
Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 Please note that Applicant is making reference to “the above limitations” as claim 1 filed December 4, 2025, not the claim 1 discussed during the September 10, 2025 interview.
2 Specification paragraph [0064]
3 claim 4
4 claim 22
5 where the breezeless member (2) is in the open position and the outer deflector (3) is in one of the open positions.
6 where the breezeless member (2) is in the closed position and the outer deflector (3) is in one of the open positions or the closed position
7 Prior art provided with previous office action, filed August 6, 2025
8 Claim 15
9 Claim 15
10 Claim 16
Prosecution Insights