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 Remarks, Amendments
Applicant is thanked for their October 17, 2025 response to the Office Action filed July 17, 2025. In particular, Applicant is thanked for their amendments to Claim 8, rendering the previous objections thereto withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 15 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 response to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 1 – 4, 8, 10, 11, and 13 – 15 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al (US 2016/0121697), in view of Yamamoto et al (US 2017/0276389), Applicant remarked that (inter alia): “Being rotatable, the alleged collection plate 22 of Yamamoto (‘697) may or may not protrude into the passage 21a or may not protrude into the passage 21a. Such a configuration according to Yamamoto is different from the claimed combination that the collection plate is fixedly positioned on the first side and protrudes from the first side to the passage.”
PNG
media_image1.png
345
1092
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the newly amended limitation “wherein the e first side and protrudes from the first side…”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 15 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 Objections
In re Claim 9, the limitation “a fillet1 having a curved surface connecting an end of inclined surface” is unclear, for at least the following. As “an/the inclined surface” is disclosed in Claim 1, it is unclear if “inclined surface” receives antecedence from Claim 1, or is a different “inclined surface”. For purposes of examination, the limitation has been understood as if to disclose, “a fillet having a curved surface connecting an end of the second side to the inclined surface”
In re Claim 10, insufficient antecedent basis has been provided for the limitation “the end of the inclined surface”. For purposes of examination, the limitation has been understood as if to disclose, “an [[the]] end of the inclined surface.”
Appropriate correction is requested.
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 1 – 4, and 9 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Castiglioni et al (US 2017/0253107) in view of Currle et al (DE 102010049110).
In re Claim 1, Castiglioni et al discloses an air vent structure (figs 6, 7, (606)) [0047] comprising:
a collection plate (708) [0050] disposed on a first side in a passage (610) through which air flows, wherein the collection plate is fixedly positioned on the first side and protrudes from the first side to the passage; and
an inclined surface (annotated figs 6, 7, below) disposed on a second side that is opposite to the first side, the inclined surface having an inclination (apparent).
Castiglioni et al lacks a projection configured to be retractable from the inclined surface, wherein a volume of the projection, protruding from the inclined surface, is configured to be adjustable.
PNG
media_image2.png
506
1333
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Currle et al teaches an air vent structure (fig 1) comprising:
a collection plate (5) disposed on a first side in a passage (6) through which air flows, wherein the collection plate is fixedly positioned on the first side and protrudes from the first side to the passage;
a second side that is opposite to the first side; and
PNG
media_image3.png
268
590
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a projection (2) configured to be retractable (“positioned against the wall of the air duct 6 in a neutral position that does not affect the flow” [0026]) from the second surface, wherein a volume of the projection, protruding from the inclined surface, is configured to be adjustable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Castiglioni et al as taught by Currle, such that the system comprises a projection configured to be retractable from the second surface, wherein a volume of the projection, protruding from the inclined surface, is configured to be adjustable, for the benefit of providing improved vehicle occupant comfort.
The proposed combination would yield an air vent structure comprising:
a collection plate disposed on a first side in a passage through which air flows, wherein the collection plate is fixedly positioned on the first side and protrudes from the first side to the passage;
an inclined surface disposed on a second side that is opposite to the first side, the inclined surface having an inclination; and
a projection configured to be retractable from the inclined surface, wherein a volume of the projection, protruding from the inclined surface, is configured to be adjustable.
In re Claim 2, Castiglioni et al discloses wherein the collection plate (708) is configured to reduce a size of an air flow path provided by the passage (610) or a cross-sectional height of the air flow path provided by the passage (apparent, as it extends into the passage (610)).
In re Claim 3, Castiglioni et al discloses wherein the collection plate (fig 7: (708)) is a plate extending horizontally (in the direction of flow) in the passage, but lacks wherein the collection plate is a flat plate.
Currle teaches a collection plate (5), wherein the collection plate is a flat plate (“a wall”) extending in the passage.
It would have been obvious to try modifying the shape of the collection plate, such that it is a flat plate, 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. Please note that criticality for a specific shape has not been provided(specification pg 7/12, lns 8 – 11)
In re Claim 4, Castiglioni et al discloses wherein the inclined surface has an inclination such that a size of an air flow path provided by the passage or a cross-sectional height of an air flow path provided by the passage gradually increases towards the outlet of the passage (as seen in the fig 7).
In re Claim 9, the proposed system has been discussed, wherein Castiglioni et al discloses the second side of the passage comprises the inclined surface (annotated angle α). Castiglioni et al also discloses wherein the passage, the inclined surface, and a connection section therebetween that are curved. Accordingly, it has been understood that Castiglioni et al discloses further comprising a fillet2 having a curved section connected at an end of the inclined surface.
PNG
media_image4.png
293
598
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Please note that criticality has not been given for the claimed feature
In re Claim 10, Castiglioni et al discloses wherein a vertical surface extends vertically from an [[the]] end of the inclined surface.
PNG
media_image5.png
168
366
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In re Claims 11 and 12, Castiglioni et al discloses wherein a tip of the projection (708) is oblique34, and the tip has a slope in parallel with the inclination of the inclined surface (as seen in fig 7).
In re Claim 13, Castiglioni et al discloses wherein a tip of the projection is oblique (as seen in fig 7), triangular, or round.
PNG
media_image6.png
279
459
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 14, Castiglioni et al discloses wherein the collection plate (708) and the inclined surface (please refer to annotated figures 6, and 7 above, In re Claim 1) are provided near an outlet (606) [0047] of the passage (610).
In re Claim 15, Castiglioni et al discloses wherein the air (“supplied from an HVAC unit (not shown)” [0047]) is configured to flow toward the collection plate (708) in the passage (610).
Claims 5 – 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Castiglioni et al (US 2017/0253107) in view of Currle et al (DE 102010049110), and further in view of Kim et al (US 2021/0131697)
In re Claim 5, Castiglioni et al discloses wherein a width of a passage is more than eight times greater than a height of a passage [0023, 0027], such as a large width and a narrow height [0023], however Castiglioni et al is silent as to whether the height of the passage is 10 to 20 mm.
Kim et al teaches an air vent structure, wherein a narrow outlet (fig 2a: (18)) may comprise a passage height of 15 mm or less [0004], to meet a demand for an ultra-slim ventilation apparatus [0004].
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 Kim et al, such that the system comprises the height of the passage is 10 to 20 mm, for the benefit of meeting a market demand.
In re Claim 6, the proposed system has been discussed, but is silent as to wherein a thickness of the collection plate is between 10 and 50% of the height of the passage.
Kim et al teaches (fig 7A) wherein, if desired to direct the air flow upwards, a height of a collection plate (140) is greater than 5mm [0048], the collection plate being approximately 30% of the height** of the passage. (**Please note that the outlet 18 has a “vertical width” of 15mm.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide wherein the collection plate is between 10 and 50% of the height of the passage, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
In re Claim 7, the proposed system has been discussed, but is silent as to wherein a length of the collection plate is 1 to 30 mm. Upon consideration of the disclosure of Kim et al, it would have been obvious to try modifying the collection plate length such that it is 1 to 30mm, 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 8 Castiglioni et al discloses wherein the collection plate (708) extends from a first location to a second location (annotated fig 7, below) along the passage, the second location being downstream of the first location with respect to an air flow direction in the passage.
PNG
media_image7.png
298
407
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As Castiglioni et al is silent as to a starting point of the inclined surface in the passage, Castiglioni et al lacks the second location being vertically aligned with a starting point of the inclined surface in the passage.
Kim et al teaches an air vent structure, wherein a collection plate (figs 3, 7A: (141)) extends from a first location to a second location (annotated fig 3, below) along the passage, the second location being downstream of the first location with respect to an air flow direction in the passage, and the second location being vertically aligned with a starting point of the inclined surface in the passage.
PNG
media_image8.png
339
628
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 Kim et al, such that the system comprises wherein the collection plate extends from a first location to a second location along the passage, the second location being downstream of the first location with respect to an air flow direction in the passage, and the second location being vertically aligned with a starting point of the inclined surface in the passage, for the benefit of enabling airflow discharged upward along the inclined passage, to simplify wind direction control without requiring the use – and cost – of wing structures [0036].
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 Tu-Th; 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 571.270.6460 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 specification page 11/12, “the fillet 60 may include a curved section in the channel 16 to connect an end of inclined surface 30”.
2 Fillet (n):a concave junction formed where two surfaces meet; a strip that gives a rounded appearance to such a junction. ©2026 Merriam-Webster
3 Claim 11
4 Oblique (adj): neither perpendicular not parallel. © 2026 Merriam-Webster