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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/15/2025, with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims. The 35 USC § 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zou (CN107399222A), as well as Sawada (US 20140302769 A1) in view of Sano (JPH0375014U) and Schneider (DE202018104942U1).
Claim Interpretation
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1: “a coupling device, which couples the first blade to the third blade such that the first blade can be pivoted in a manner opposite that of the third blade;”
Claim 7: “an operating element is disposed at the first blade, which is non-rotatable with respect to the first blade and displaceable parallel to the first pivot axis”
Claim 8: “an operating element is operatively connected to the second blade by way of a connector, and that the connector is mounted at the first blade so as to be rotatable about the first pivot axis”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
With regards to the coupling device, the corresponding structure described on page 8 lines 25-26 of the 09/19/2022 specification is that of an assembly of pivot levers and a coupling rod (“The coupling device 12 comprises an input pivot lever 13 and an output pivot lever 14 and a coupling rod 15“).
With regards to the operating element, while the written disclosure and figures don’t explicitly indicate what the corresponding structure of the operating element is, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the structure to be that of a knob based on the entirety of the disclosure. For example, page 5 lines 11-13 of the 09/19/2022 specification state “the operating element can be gripped by a person sitting in a passenger compartment of a motor vehicle”, and the element 16 of figs. 1-2 are consistent with that of a knob of air vent if a motor vehicle.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Additionally, with regards to applicant’s amendment stating “a constant flow-cross-section of the air channel between the inflow opening and the outflow opening”, this is interpreted such that there is a partial section of the air channel between the inflow opening and the outflow opening which comprises a constant flow-cross-section, and not that the entirety of the air channel between the inflow opening and the outflow opening comprises a constant flow-cross-section. This is interpreted as such since an entire constant flow-cross-section is not described in the disclosure, as well as not being shown on the figures (fig. 1 of the disclosure, shown in part below, comprises a guide groove 19 described in the specification (“a guide groove 19 in a channel wall 20 of the air channel 2” [page 10 lines 1-2]) that would prevent the entirety of the air channel between the inflow opening and the outflow opening from comprising a constant flow-cross-section).
PNG
media_image1.png
160
249
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of disclosure
However, fig. 1 does show a constant flow cross section on either side of the guide groove 19 and second pivot axis 6 area, and thus a partial section of the air channel between the inflow opening and the outflow opening which comprises a constant flow-cross-section is disclosed.
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) 1, 3-5, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zou (CN107399222A), referring to the English translation dated 03/06/2026.
Regarding claim 1, Zou teaches
an air vent (air outlet structure A, fig. 2), comprising an air channel (housing of air outlet structure A) including an inflow opening (at upstream side of air outlet structure A) and an outflow opening (at downstream side of air outlet structure A) with a constant flow-cross-section of the air channel between the inflow opening and the outflow opening (as shown on fig. 2, the housing of air outlet structure A appears to have a constant flow cross section upstream of front blades 11), the air vent comprising at least three blades (front blades 11, rear blades 21, damper 9) which are disposed behind one another in a flow direction through the air channel from the inflow opening to the outflow opening (fig. 6) and can be pivoted for guiding an air current through the air channel (about pivot axes shown on fig. 6), of which a first blade at the outflow opening which can be pivoted about a first pivot axis (front blades 11) and a third blade at the inflow opening which can be pivoted about a third pivot axis (damper 9) are parallel to one another (parallel on open state of damper 9, fig. 8A), and a second blade that can be pivoted about a second pivot axis is disposed between the first and third blades at an angle with respect to the first and third blades in the air channel (rear blades 21), and comprising a coupling device (control mechanism 3), which couples the first blade to the third blade such that the first blade can be pivoted in a manner opposite that of the third blade (damper 9 comprises two blades that pivot about same axis; control mechanism 3 allows front blades 11 to pivot in direction opposite either of the damper blades since the front blades rotate independently of the damper), wherein the third pivot axis of the third blade is disposed, in the flow direction through the air channel, at an edge of the third blade which faces the second blade (pivot axis of damper 9 disposed at edge of two damper 9 blades that face rear blades 21, fig. 6), and that the first and third pivot axes are stationary with respect to the air channel (pivot axes of blades are coupled to housing and thus remain stationary, as shown on fig. 2)
Zou appears to teach a constant flow-cross-section of the air channel between the inflow opening and the outflow opening, however, in the event applicant disagrees, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the air channel of Zou as such as these changes in configuration are a matter of design when the particular configuration result in no change in system performance. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant; applicant has not cited mechanical significance of the recited configuration to perform differently than the prior art device in the disclosure (see page 6 lines 17-21 of applicant’s 09/19/2022 specification). Therefore, the claim is given no distinguishable patentability.
Regarding claim 3, Zou teaches the air vent according to claim 1,
wherein the second pivot axis of the second blade is stationary with respect to the air channel (pivot axes of blades are coupled to housing and thus remain stationary, as shown on fig. 2)
Regarding claim 4, Zou teaches the air vent according to claim 1,
wherein the first and third blades are distanced from one another in the flow direction through the air channel, and that the second blade extends through an intermediate space between the first and third blades formed by the distance (as shown on fig. 6)
Regarding claim 5, Zou teaches the air vent according to claim 1,
wherein the first and third blades are coupled to a coupling rod (lever 6), which is connected to the first and third blades in an articulated manner (via universal joint 5), and in each case at a radial distance with respect to the first and third pivot axes (as shown on fig. 7A)
Regarding claim 7, Zou teaches the air vent according to claim 1,
wherein an operating element is disposed at the first blade (knob assembly 4), which is non-rotatable with respect to the first blade and displaceable parallel to the first pivot axis (knob assembly 4 comprises slits 413, 414 to accommodate one of the front blades 11, fig. 4; “One of the front blades, such as the middle one of the front blades 11, is connected to a control mechanism 3. In fact, each of the front blades can rotate around the axis Y under the control of the control mechanism 3 for adjusting the air outlet” [0046]; thus, knob assembly 4 rotates with front blades 11 in rotation direction of pivot axis of front blades 11)
Regarding claim 8, Zou teaches the air vent according to claim 1,
wherein an operating element (knob assembly 4) is operatively connected to the second blade by way of a connector (connecting arm 412 and shift fork 8), and that the connector is mounted at the first blade so as to be rotatable about the first pivot axis (fig. 6; “The longitudinal direction of the blade 11 (axis Y) moves, and the shift fork 8 fixed to the outer side of the knob assembly 4 by the connecting arm 412 is connected to one rear blade 21, so that the movement of the knob assembly 4 along the longitudinal direction of the front blade 11 The rear blades 21 will be driven to rotate around the axis Z” [0050])
Regarding claim 9, Zou teaches the air vent according to claim 8,
wherein the connector engages on an end face of the second blade (as shown on fig. 6 shift fork 8 engages on an end face of the rear blade 21) which faces a channel wall of the air channel of the air vent (in state of rear blades 21 rotated to the left or right, downstream face of rear blade 21 faces a channel wall of the air channel of the air vent)
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada (US 20140302769 A1) in view of Sano (JPH0375014U), referring to the English translation dated 03/06/2026, and Schneider (DE202018104942U1), referring to the English translation dated 03/06/2026.
Regarding claim 1, Sawada teaches
an air vent (“register” [0039], fig. 7-8), comprising an air channel (air passage 3) including an inflow opening (at upstream side of air passage 3) and an outflow opening (at downstream side of air passage 3) with a constant flow-cross-section of the air channel between the inflow opening and the outflow opening (fig. 7-8, air passage 3 comprises constant cross section in area of rear movable louver 5 and back movable louver 8), the air vent comprising at least three blades (front movable louver 4, rear movable louver 5, back movable louver 8) which are disposed behind one another in a flow direction through the air channel from the inflow opening to the outflow opening (figs. 7-8) and can be pivoted for guiding an air current through the air channel (shown between figs. 7-8), of which a first blade at the outflow opening which can be pivoted about a first pivot axis (front movable louver 4) and a third blade at the inflow opening which can be pivoted about a third pivot axis (back movable louver 8) are parallel to one another (parallel when both are horizontal with case body 1), and a second blade that can be pivoted about a second pivot axis is disposed between the first and third blades at an angle with respect to the first and third blades in the air channel (rear movable louver 5), and that the first and third pivot axes are stationary with respect to the air channel (pivots 41a, 43a, and 81a remain stationary as shown on figs. 7-8)
Sawada does not teach
comprising a coupling device, which couples the first blade to the third blade such that the first blade can be pivoted in a manner opposite that of the third blade
wherein the third pivot axis of the third blade is disposed, in the flow direction through the air channel, at an edge of the third blade which faces the second blade
Sano teaches
comprising a coupling device, which couples the first blade to the third blade such that the first blade can be pivoted in a manner opposite that of the third blade (14a and 18 assembly, figs. 1-2)
Sawada teaches “The respective horizontal fins 41 and 43 of the front movable louver 4 are turned up and down by a turning mechanism 46 so as to change the wind direction in the up-down short-side direction in cooperation with the back movable louver 8. The turning mechanism 46 of the front movable louver 4 is composed of a linkage mechanism by manual operation, a gear mechanism, or a motor-driven mechanism”, however does not further teach the configuration of the turning mechanisms, which can be gear mechanisms. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the gear assembly of Sano to provide a simple assembly for a user to change the outlet direction of the air vent of Sawada without requiring any electrical components.
Schneider teaches
wherein the third pivot axis of the third blade is disposed, in the flow direction through the air channel, at an edge of the third blade which faces the second blade (rotation axis of second lamella 50 located an edge which faces the first slat 40, fig. 4)
Schneider teaches a similar air vent arrangement to that of Sawada, wherein the rotation axis of the second lamella 50 located a downstream edge. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the rotation axis of the back movable louver 8 as taught in Schneider, in order to effectively prevent airflow from flowing underneath the louver when the louver is rotated downward, or underneath the louver when the louver is rotated upward (as shown on figs. 2-3 of Schneider, second lamella 50 comes in contact with wall sections 14, when rotating up or down, thus preventing airflow from flowing between the second lamella 50 and side of the housing in the direction which the lamella rotates).
Regarding claim 2, Sawada, as modified, teaches the air vent according to claim 1,
wherein the second pivot axis of the second blade, in the flow direction through the air channel, is disposed at a center of the second blade (pivots 51a disposed at the center of vertical fins 51 as shown on fig. 3) and/or a first pivot axis of the first blade, in the flow direction through the air channel, is disposed between a center of the first blade and an edge of the first blade which is remote from the second blade (not required due to “or” statement)
Regarding claim 3, Sawada, as modified, teaches the air vent according to claim 1,
wherein the second pivot axis of the second blade is stationary with respect to the air channel (pivots 51a remain stationary as shown on fig. 3)
Regarding claim 4, Sawada, as modified, teaches the air vent according to claim 1,
wherein the first and third blades are distanced from one another in the flow direction through the air channel, and that the second blade extends through an intermediate space between the first and third blades formed by the distance (as shown on figs. 7-8)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada (US 20140302769 A1) in view of Sano (JPH0375014U), referring to the English translation dated 03/06/2026, and Schneider (DE202018104942U1), referring to the English translation dated 03/06/2026, in further view of Ma (KR20110071502A), referring to the English translation dated 03/06/2026.
Regarding claim 6, Sawada, as modified, teaches the air vent according to claim 1,
wherein a plurality of second blades are disposed next to one another between the first and third blades in the flow direction through the air channel and so as to be jointly pivotable (“For turning the large number of vertical fins 51 in synchronization and conjunction with each other, cranks 51 b are attached to the pivots 51 a provided at the lower side thereof, and a link bar 51 d is joined to deviating joint shafts 51 c of the cranks 51 b. The rear movable louver 5 is a structure in which any pivot 51 a is driven to rotate within a predetermined angular range by a turning mechanism 56 , and the large number of vertical fins 51 are thereby turned in the same direction in synchronization and conjunction with each other to change the wind direction in the longitudinal direction, i.e., the right-left direction”) [0046]
Sawada does not teach
the second blades being pivotable into a blocking position in which these close the air channel
Ma teaches
the second blades being pivotable into a blocking position in which these close the air channel (“5D, when the operation knob 140 is slid to the left, the front wings 120 rotated in the clockwise direction are overlapped with each other to completely close the air outlet 111”) [page 2 lines 45-47]
Sawada teaches rotating vertical fins 51 via turning mechanism 56, however does not explicitly teach the vertical fins 51 being pivotable into a blocking position in which these close the air channel. Ma teaches a similar arrangement comprising vertical front wings 120 which can pivotably close the air channel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this closing rotation of Ma to the system of Sawada, as modified, in order to selectively close the air channel to accommodate passenger comfort requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art of record not relied upon includes:
Kim (US20200406722A1), which teaches a similar air vent to that claimed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRETT P. MALLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8am to 5pm.
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 at (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, 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.
/BRETT P. MALLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762