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 Amendment
The amendment filed 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-15 remain canceled.
Claims 16-32 remain pending.
Claims 33-34 are newly added.
Claims 16-34 are examined herein on the merits.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/28/2025 (hereinafter the OA).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 (hereinafter, Remarks) have been fully considered and are partially persuasive and partially unpersuasive as follows:
Specifically, the arguments (regarding to new limitations) with respect to the rejections of claims 16-17, 20 and 28-29 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Staite (GB 2555783; all reference to copy of record 05/19/2023 from IDS of the same date).
Regarding the arguments (Remarks, p.11; specifically, with regarding to new limitations introduced into claim 21) with respect to the rejections of claims 21-23 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Staite (GB 2555783; all reference to copy of record 05/19/2023 from IDS of the same date).
Regarding the arguments (Remarks, p.12; specifically, with regarding to new limitations introduced into claim 24 by dependency from amended claim 16) with respect to the rejection of claim 24 under 35 USC 103 has been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Staite (GB 2555783; all reference to copy of record 05/19/2023 from IDS of the same date).
Applicant's remaining arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as follows:
Applicant argues regarding claim 18 (Remarks at pp.9-10) that the generally recited additive manufacturing method is not met by Seki and Benthien since these references have “fundamentally different manufacturing modalities”; that “Benthien's ALM process would change the principle of operation of Seki's layered thin-film heater and is not a simple, predictable substitution” and that “The Examiner's general statement-"additive manufacturing allows accurately producing desired vehicular parts"-is an insufficient rationale”
This line of reasoning is not persuasive because the language in question is “at least one region, which includes the temperature-sensitive material, of the functional component, is produced at least partially from an additive production method” (emphasis added; Remarks p.9; instant claim 18) and does not include or require the entirety of any device be manufactured in a certain manner, but rather a region including the temperature-sensitive material must be produced at least partially via additive manufacture. As such the alleged different manufacture modalities are accounted for in the various other ways necessarily used in the manufacture of the rest of the device. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art knows how to balance and choose desired manufacturing styles to combine and produced a desired design.
Further, in response to applicant's argument that substituting Benthien's ALM process into Seki’s device is “not a simple, predictable substitution” (Remarks, p.9), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In the instant case one of ordinary skill looking to produce a part of a region of a vehicle component is well taught and has both suggestion and motivation to use additive manufacturing for such a part of a region of a component of a vehicle as the teaching of Benthien directly states that the vehicle components with plural materials/portions may be made additively (see Summary of Benthien and motivation statement in the OA at p.6, final paragraph).
Further, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Benthien teaches regarding how additive manufacturing provides vehicle components made from multiple materials in specific shapes and sizes for fitting in/to a vehicle (see Summary [0007-12] teaching accurate dimensions for vehicle components may be assembled in a vehicle – see motivation statement in the OA at p.6, final paragraph condensing and summarizing this suggestion and motivation to make well fitted components via at least partial additive manufacturing).
Applicant argues regarding claim 19 (Remarks at p.10) that there is no “suggestion in Fox to apply injection molding to such multi-layer thermochromic coatings” and that “fails to provide a reason to combine Fox's molding with Seki's specific layered heater skin that uses film and paint coatings”.
There are at least three responses.
First, see the line of reasoning for claim 18 above regarding additive manufacturing.
Second, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., injection molding to multi-layer thermochromic coatings) are not recited in the rejected claims. 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).
Specifically, the actual claim language at issue is “The functional component according to claim 16, wherein at least one region, which includes the temperature-sensitive material, of the functional component, is at least partially produced from an injection-molding method.” (emphasis added - instant claim 19). As currently constructed the claim language only requires a partially produced region which includes the temperature sensitive-material – i.e. this claim only requires injection molding to produce a part of a region where the region includes the temperature sensitive material but carefully stops short of requiring injection molding of the temperature-sensitive material as argued. Should applicant intend to claim this argued for limitation such limitation MUST be included in the claim.
Third, in response to applicant's argument that the two cited prior art references would not physically combine well, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art is taught by the references regarding vehicle components with temperature sensitive material (Seki) and vehicle components made with knowledge of injection molding (Fox). Both suggestion and motivation for combining these concepts is given (see at least treatment of claim 19 below).
Applicant argues regarding claim 25 (Remarks at p.12) that the temperature directing members must have the temperature sensitive material.
This is unpersuasive since Schneider directly teaches that the airflow “guide slats” “are coated with thermochromatic material” (see [0026] of Schneider as cited at p.10 treatment of claim 25 of the OA).
Applicant argues regarding claim 27 (Remarks at p.12) that the spacing of the vent slats is speculative, not grounded in explicit disclosure and is conjecture.
This might be persuasive if the rejection was based on anticipation. However, the rejection is based on obviousness.
In response to applicant's argument that the explicit drawing showing plural thermochromic slats separating and directing the airflow in portions therethrough is somehow conjecture, applicant is remined that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, upon seeing and reading regarding thermochromic slats dividing and directing air flow, one of ordinary skill is well apprised of how to divide the air into portions to flow past/over the thermochromic material (see the OA at pp.12-13, treating claim 27).
Applicant argues regarding claims 30-32 (Remarks at pp.12-13) that outlets should not be grouped to meet the 70% and that grouping of openings is unsupported.
However, claim 31 which depends from claim 30 directly states “the first outlet opening comprises a first group of outlet openings.” (instant claim 31). Claim 32 likewise states “the second outlet opening comprises a second group of outlet openings.” (instant claim 32).
This appears to directly contradict applicant’s argument and as such this argument is unpersuasive.
Further, applicant argues that these first and second groups is more than mere plurality and has to do with “differing optical behavior” (Remarks, p.13) and that the “claimed >70% routing to the thermochromic outlet opening/group facilitates rapid, precise signaling-an effect”. (Remarks, p.13).
In response to applicant's arguments that the differing optical behavior and >70% routing to the thermochromic outlet opening/group facilitates rapid, precise signaling-an effect, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Therefore, the position of the office must remain that upon knowledge of the cited art one of ordinary skill in the art would have had all the information and motivation required to make the invention as claimed at the time it was made.
See rejections under 35 USC 103 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16-17, 20-23 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al. (US 20180105017; hereinafter Seki) in view of Staite (GB 2555783; all reference to copy of record 05/19/2023 from IDS of the same date).
Regarding claim 16, Seki teaches a functional component (at least heater devices 10 including at least 10a and 10b) for a vehicle (abstract; fig. 1; [0024-25]), comprising:
at least one temperature-sensitive material (at least one of 221 and 222 – collectively referenced as 22; [0040]; see [0040-43] teaching regarding these thermochromic and color variable materials) forming and/or comprising at least a portion of the functional component (see at least figs. 3 and 4 showing this forming/comprising; see at least [0036]),
wherein the temperature sensitive material is designed such that, one or more predefined limit temperatures (at least T1 and/or T2; see fig. 4 showing examples of this/these predefined temperature limit(s)), an optically perceptible property for representing a temperature information (color; see fig. 4), which describes the temperature of at least a portion of the functional component, is changeable (see fig. 4 best showing this; see also figs. 5-9 showing detailed examples of this temperature based color changing).
Seki does not directly and specifically state that the predefined limit(s) is/are in the range from -5° C to 40° C.
However, Staite teaches color changing vehicle components (abstract) with color changing limits including “change, from a darker colour to a lighter color, thermochromically between 12°C and 13°C.” (abstract; see also p.2, ¶ at 11 giving color change temperature of 8-18°C and 10-15°C; see also p.4, ¶s at 5 and 11).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the functional component for a vehicle having thermochromic / temperature sensitive material with predefined transition temperatures of Seki with the specific knowledge of using the predefined limit temperature(s) in the range of -5° C to 40° C of Staite. This is because such temperatures allow for the color to change in room temperature vehicle environments as desired by a designer. This is important in order to provide a desired end user experience.
Regarding claim 17, Seki teaches that at least a first region of the functional component is formed from the first temperature-sensitive material and/or comprises the first temperature-sensitive material (region of 222; see figs 3 and 4), the temperature-sensitive material comprises a first predefined limit temperature (T2; see fig. 4), and at least a second region of the functional component includes a second temperature-sensitive material and/or comprises a second temperature-sensitive material (region of 221; see figs. 3 and 4) which is constructed such that an optically perceptible property is changeable at least at one predefined second limit temperature (T1; see fig. 4) which is different from the first predefined limit temperature (at least fig. 4 gives an example of T2=60C and T1=120C).
Regarding claim 20, Seki teaches that the changeable, optically perceptible property of the at least one temperature-sensitive material includes a color, a degree of transparency, a degree of translucence, and/or a surface sheen (see figs. 4-6 showing and teaching at least color and transparency).
Regarding claim 21, Seki teaches that the functional component is at least [on] an input device of the vehicle (at least steering wheel/steering column 92/94; [0025] “device 10b is installed to a lower portion of a steering column 94”; see fig. 1, element 10b).
Seki lacks direct and specific teaching that the functional component is a portion of the input device and the temperature-sensitive material is arranged on a user-touching input surface that is configured for tactile actuation by an operator.
However, Staite teaches color changing vehicle components (abstract) with color changing limits including “change, from a darker colour to a lighter color, thermochromically between 12°C and 13°C.” (abstract; see also p.2, ¶ at 11 giving color change temperature of 8-18°C and 10-15°C; see also p.4, ¶s at 5 and 11) and that the component may be a user-touching input surface configured for tactile actuation by an operator such as preferably a “steering wheel” (abstract; see also p.2, ¶ at 17).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the functional component for a vehicle of Seki with the knowledge of placing a color changing / thermochromic component on a user-touching input surface configured for tactile actuation by an operator such as a steering wheel of Staite. This is because such placement allows for a user-touching input surface configured for tactile actuation by an operator to show temperature. This is important in order to provide temperature information regarding the component / steering wheel to an end user in a direct and visual manner.
Regarding claim 22, Seki lacks direct and specific teaching that the input device is a gear selection lever.
However, Staite teaches color changing vehicle components (abstract) with color changing limits including “change, from a darker colour to a lighter color, thermochromically between 12°C and 13°C.” (abstract; see also p.2, ¶ at 11 giving color change temperature of 8-18°C and 10-15°C; see also p.4, ¶s at 5 and 11) and that the component may be a user-touching input surface configured for tactile actuation by an operator such that “The component can be upholstery of a seat or a door panel or a dashboard or a steering wheel or the like or a part thereof.” (emphasis added - p.2, ¶ at 17; see also abstract).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the functional component for a vehicle of Seki with the knowledge of placing a color changing / thermochromic component on a user-touching input surface configured for tactile actuation by an operator such as a steering wheel or the like of Staite. This is because such placement allows for a user-touching input surface configured for tactile actuation by an operator to show temperature. This is important in order to provide temperature information regarding the component to an end user in a direct and visual manner.
Further, Seki does disclose that the functional component/heater is “the on-vehicle radiant heater, which is installed to the vehicle” ([0078]; see fig. 1) and that the installation location is not limited by the given example ([0078]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the functional component/heater for a vehicle which is known to be installed to a steering column of Seki with integration into the vehicle’s other control surfaces such as a gear selection lever as indicated by design requirements. This is because since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention (here on an input device in a vehicle to on a different input device in a vehicle where the art teaches that the instillation location is not limited by the example) involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 23, Seki teaches that the input device is a steering wheel and/or a handlebar grip (at least steering wheel/steering column 92/94; [0025] “device 10b is installed to a lower portion of a steering column 94”; see fig. 1, element 10b; see also Staite at abstract teaching a steering wheel).
Regarding claim 28, Seki teaches an arrangement, comprising:
a functional component according to claim 16 (see treatment of claim 16 above), and
a temperature control device ([0034] teaches regarding a control device), wherein thermal energy absorbed and/or discharged by the temperature control device acts on the functional component thermally ([0034]; see also [0064-65]).
Seki does not directly and specifically state that at least 75% of the thermal energy is used to generate a descriptive temperature information item by exceeding and/or not reaching the predefined limit temperature.
However, Staite does disclose color changing vehicle components (abstract) with color changing limits including “change, from a darker colour to a lighter color, thermochromically between 12°C and 13°C.” (abstract; see also p.2, ¶ at 11 giving color change temperature of 8-18°C and 10-15°C; see also p.4, ¶s at 5 and 11) and that the component may have a means for heating (at least “low wattage heating element 16” p.4, ¶ at 11) where the heating from the element warms the component, such as leather upholstery or covering boss to cause a color change (abstract; p.4, ¶ at 11).
Please note that the warming of the leather is for the purpose of changing the color and the applied energy is used for this purpose – i.e. all of the energy is used to generate a descriptive temperature information item by exceeding and/or not reaching the predefined limit temperature (see p.4, ¶ at 11).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the functional component for a vehicle of Seki with energy application warming the leather upholstery / boss for the purpose of changing the color of Staite. This is because such application of energy for the express purpose of changing a color of a leather boss allows a graphic to appear more prominently (see p.4, ¶ at 11 of Staite). This is important in order to inform or provide a sense of prestige to an end user.
Regarding claim 29, Seki teaches a vehicle (see at least [0024] teaches that the component/devices are installed in a vehicle; see also fig. 1) comprising at least one functional component according to claim 16 (see treatment of claim 16 above).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al. (US 20180105017; hereinafter Seki) as modified by Staite (GB 2555783; all reference to copy of record 05/19/2023 from IDS of the same date) as applied to claim 16 above and in view of Benthien et al. (US 20160136891; hereinafter Benthien).
Regarding claim 18, Seki and Staite do not directly and specifically state that at least one region, which includes the temperature-sensitive material, of the functional component, is produced at least partially from an additive production method.
However, Benthien teaches producing components for vehicles “using additive layer manufacturing” (abstract; see also title and summary).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the functional component for a vehicle of Seki with the knowledge of the additive manufacturing / production as known from Benthien. This is because such additive manufacturing / production allows for accurately producing desired vehicular parts / components. This is important in order to provide properly formed devices to an end user for making the vehicle (see at least Summary of Benthien indicating the various benefits using additive manufacturing to properly form vehicle components including: improved mechanical resistance [0008]; applying multiple layers [0009]; increased production speed [0014]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al. (US 20180105017; hereinafter Seki) and Staite (GB 2555783; all reference to copy of record 05/19/2023 from IDS of the same date) as applied to claim 16 above and in view of Fox et al. (US 20130052412; hereinafter Fox).
Regarding claim 19, Seki and Staite do not directly and specifically state that at least one region, which includes the temperature-sensitive material, of the functional component, is at least partially produced from an injection-molding method.
However, Fox teaches producing components for vehicles (abstract; title) using injection molding ([0039]; see also title).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the functional component for a vehicle of Seki with the injection molding for the manufacturing / production of vehicle parts / components of Fox. This is because such injection molding allows for producing desired vehicular parts / components with a well-known method for manufacture. This is important in order to provide properly formed devices to an end user for making the vehicle (see [0039] of Fox teaching that “Due to the dimensional accuracy of the mold cavity, each edge of the resultant trim component will substantially correspond to the desired dimensions.”).
Claims 24-27 and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al. (US 20180105017; hereinafter Seki) as modified by Staite (GB 2555783; all reference to copy of record 05/19/2023 from IDS of the same date) as applied to claims 16 and 29 respectively above and further in view of Schneider (DE 202010008497; all reference to English Machine Translation attached herein).
Regarding claim 24, Seki and Staite do not directly and specifically state that the functional component is at least a portion of a supply device and/or directing device for supplying and/or steering air into an interior of the vehicle.
However, Schneider teaches a device/functional component for a vehicle ([0001]) having at least one temperature-sensitive material (at least 4 and/or 5; see fig. 1; [0042]; [0007]) and the functional component is at least a portion of a supply device and/or directing device for supplying and/or steering air into an interior of the vehicle ([0001]; see fig. 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the functional component for a vehicle having thermochromic materials of Seki and Staite with the specific knowledge of using the functional component for a vehicle having thermochromic materials which is an air supply device of Schneider. This is because use of this use of such thermochromic material allows for “the temperature of the air flow can be intuitively and correctly perceived by an observer” ([0017] of Schneider). This is important in order to inform an end user of the vehicle whether the heating is on or off.
Regarding claim 25, Seki and Staite do not directly and specifically state that the supply device and/or directing device comprises at least one outlet which comprises a base member and a directing member movably supported relative to the base member, and the directing member comprises a directing portion, past or through which at least a portion of the air which is supplied and/or directed into the interior of the vehicle flows, and at least a portion of the directing member is constructed from or includes the temperature sensitive material which changes its optically perceptible property in the case of a change in temperature.
However, Schneider teaches a device/functional component for a vehicle ([0001]) having at least one temperature-sensitive material (at least 4 and/or 5; see fig. 1; [0042]; [0007]) and the functional component is at least a portion of a supply device and/or directing device for supplying and/or steering air into an interior of the vehicle ([0001]; see fig. 1) where the device has an outlet (see fig. 1; [0005]) having a base member (at least frame 3; see fig. 1; [0031]; [0042]) and a directing member (at least guide slats 2; [0026]; see fig. 1) for directing airflow ([0030]) which include, are coated with or are made of thermochromic material ([0026] – see especially regarding “guide slats 2 which are coated with thermochromatic material 5” and also may comprise thermochromatic pigmentation).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the functional component for a vehicle having thermochromic materials of Seki and Staite with the functional component for a vehicle having thermochromic materials which is an air supply device of Schneider. This is because use of this use of such thermochromic material allows for “the temperature of the air flow can be intuitively and correctly perceived by an observer” ([0017] of Schneider). This is important in order to inform an end user of the vehicle whether the heating is on or off.
Regarding claim 26, Seki and Staite do not directly and specifically state that the directing member comprises a channel directing portion provided with an inlet region and an outlet region and through which flows at least a portion of the air which is supplied and/or directed via the outlet into the interior of the vehicle.
However, Schneider teaches a device/functional component for a vehicle ([0001]) having at least one temperature-sensitive material (at least 4 and/or 5; see fig. 1; [0042]; [0007]) and the functional component is at least a portion of a supply device and/or directing device for supplying and/or steering air into an interior of the vehicle ([0001]; see fig. 1) where the device has an outlet on the outflow side (generally the front as drawn; see fig. 1) and an inlet (generally the back as drawn; see fig. 1) opposite the outflow side and on the inflow side (see fig. 1; see also [0005]) having a base member (at least frame 3; see fig. 1; [0031]; [0042]) with a channel for airflow therebetween (see fig. 1) and a directing member (at least guide slats 2; [0026]; see fig. 1) for directing airflow ([0030]) which include / are coated with / are made of thermochromic material ([0026]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the functional component for a vehicle having thermochromic materials of Seki with the specific knowledge of using the functional component for a vehicle having thermochromic materials which is an air supply device of Schneider. This is because use of this use of such thermochromic material allows for “the temperature of the air flow can be intuitively and correctly perceived by an observer” ([0017] of Schneider). This is important in order to inform an end user of the vehicle whether the heating is on or off.
Regarding claim 27, Seki and Staite do not directly and specifically state that the portion of the air is a maximum of 50% by volume.
However, Schneider teaches a device/functional component for a vehicle ([0001]) having at least one temperature-sensitive material (at least 4 and/or 5; see fig. 1; [0042]; [0007]) and the functional component is at least a portion of a supply device and/or directing device for supplying and/or steering air into an interior of the vehicle via a divided airflow ([0001]; see fig. 1 showing slats both directing and dividing the airflow ) where the device has an outlet on the outflow side (generally the front as drawn; see fig. 1) and an inlet (generally the back as drawn; see fig. 1) opposite the outflow side and on the inflow side (see fig. 1; see also [0005]) having a base member (at least frame 3; see fig. 1; [0031]; [0042]) with a channel for airflow therebetween (see fig. 1) and a directing member (at least guide slats 2; [0026]; see fig. 1) for directing airflow ([0030]) which include, are coated with or are made of thermochromic material ([0026]) where each channel between the slats is ~ 20-25% of the airflow (see fig. 1, showing an example of 5 evenly spaced slats).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the functional component for a vehicle having thermochromic materials of Seki and Staite with the specific knowledge regarding the functional component for a vehicle having thermochromic materials which is an air supply device having divided and directed airflow of Schneider. This is because use of this use of such dividing of the airflow with slats having thermochromic material allows for directing the air over the slats as desired which provides a structure where “the temperature of the air flow can be intuitively and correctly perceived by an observer” ([0017] of Schneider). This is important in order to inform an end user of the vehicle whether the heating is on or off while directing the airflow.
Regarding claim 30, Seki and Staite do not directly and specifically state that the functional component is at least a portion of a supply device and/or directing device for supplying and/or directing air into an interior of a vehicle, the supply and/or directing of air into the interior has at least two outlet openings, at least a first outlet opening is in the form of a functional component with a property which changes the optically perceptible property thereof in accordance with temperature, and at least one additional outlet opening has no change or a different change which is dependent on the temperature of an optically perceptible property thereof as the first outlet opening, wherein in at least one operating mode of the supply device and/or directing device, at least 70% of the air which is supplied via the supply device and/or directing device into the interior is introduced into the interior via the first outlet opening.
However, Schneider teaches a device/functional component for a vehicle ([0001]) having at least one temperature-sensitive material (at least 4 and/or 5; see fig. 1; [0042]; [0007]) and the functional component is at least a portion of a supply device and/or directing device for supplying and/or steering air into an interior of the vehicle ([0001]; see fig. 1) where the device has an outlet on the outflow side (generally the front as drawn; see fig. 1) and an inlet (generally the back as drawn; see fig. 1) opposite the outflow side and on the inflow side (see fig. 1; see also [0005]) having a base member (at least frame 3; see fig. 1; [0031]; [0042]) with a channel for airflow therebetween (see fig. 1) and a directing member (at least guide slats 2; [0026]; see fig. 1) for directing airflow ([0030]) which include, are coated with or are made of thermochromic material ([0026]) where each channel between the slats is ~ 20-25% of the airflow (see fig. 1, showing an example of 5 evenly spaced slats) and plural openings may be considered as grouped into an opening with more than 70% of the airflow which optically changes based on the temperature (see fig. 1; [0032] teaches that in “particular, it is also possible to provide a thermochromic material with different properties on different guide lamellae 2”; see also [0032-36] teaching more in depth).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the functional component for a vehicle having thermochromic materials of Seki with the functional component for a vehicle having thermochromic materials which is an air supply device having plural openings and thermochromic materials with different properties on the guides defining these openings of Schneider. This is because use of this use of such dividing of the airflow with slats / guides having differing thermochromic material allows for directing the air over the slats as desired which provides a structure where “the temperature of the air flow can be intuitively and correctly perceived by an observer” ([0017] of Schneider). This is important in order to inform an end user of the vehicle whether the heating is on or off while directing the airflow.
Regarding claim 31, Seki and Staite do not directly and specifically state that the first outlet opening comprises a first group of outlet openings.
However, Schneider teaches a device/functional component for a vehicle ([0001]) having at least one temperature-sensitive material (at least 4 and/or 5; see fig. 1; [0042]; [0007]) and the functional component is at least a portion of a supply device and/or directing device for supplying and/or steering air into an interior of the vehicle ([0001]; see fig. 1) where the device has an outlet on the outflow side (generally the front as drawn; see fig. 1) and an inlet (generally the back as drawn; see fig. 1) opposite the outflow side and on the inflow side (see fig. 1; see also [0005]) having a base member (at least frame 3; see fig. 1; [0031]; [0042]) with a channel for airflow therebetween (see fig. 1) and a directing member (at least guide slats 2; [0026]; see fig. 1) for directing airflow ([0030]) which include, are coated with or are made of thermochromic material ([0026]) where each channel between the slats is ~ 20-25% of the airflow (see fig. 1, showing an example of 5 evenly spaced slats) and plural openings may be considered as a first group of openings (see fig. 1; [0032] teaches that in “particular, it is also possible to provide a thermochromic material with different properties on different guide lamellae 2” i.e. divisors amongst the groups of openings; see also [0032-36] teaching more in depth).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the functional component for a vehicle having thermochromic materials of Seki with knowledge of the functional component which is an air supply device having plural openings and thermochromic materials with different properties on the guides defining these plural openings of Schneider. This is because use of this use of such thermochromic material allows for “the temperature of the air flow can be intuitively and correctly perceived by an observer” ([0017] of Schneider). This is important in order to inform an end user of the vehicle regarding the heating.
Regarding claim 32, Seki and Staite do not directly and specifically state that the second outlet opening comprises a second group of outlet openings.
However, Schneider teaches a device/functional component for a vehicle ([0001]) having at least one temperature-sensitive material (at least 4 and/or 5; see fig. 1; [0042]; [0007]) and the functional component is at least a portion of a supply device and/or directing device for supplying and/or steering air into an interior of the vehicle ([0001]; see fig. 1) where the device has an outlet on the outflow side (generally the front as drawn; see fig. 1) and an inlet (generally the back as drawn; see fig. 1) opposite the outflow side and on the inflow side (see fig. 1; see also [0005]) having a base member (at least frame 3; see fig. 1; [0031]; [0042]) with a channel for airflow therebetween (see fig. 1) and a directing member (at least guide slats 2; [0026]; see fig. 1) for directing airflow ([0030]) which include, are coated with or are made of thermochromic material ([0026]) where each channel between the slats is ~ 20-25% of the airflow (see fig. 1, showing an example of 5 evenly spaced slats) and plural openings may be considered as a second group of openings (see fig. 1; [0032] teaches that in “particular, it is also possible to provide a thermochromic material with different properties on different guide lamellae 2” i.e. divisors amongst the groups of openings; see also [0032-36] teaching more in depth).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the functional component for a vehicle having thermochromic materials of Seki with knowledge of the functional component which is an air supply device having plural openings and thermochromic materials with different properties on the guides defining these plural openings of Schneider. This is because use of this use of such thermochromic material allows for “the temperature of the air flow can be intuitively and correctly perceived by an observer” ([0017] of Schneider). This is important in order to inform an end user of the vehicle regarding the heating.
Regarding claim 33, Seki and Staite do not directly and specifically state that the portion of the air that flows through the channel directing portion is a maximum of 25% by volume.
However, Schneider teaches a device/functional component for a vehicle ([0001]) having at least one temperature-sensitive material (at least 4 and/or 5; see fig. 1; [0042]; [0007]) and the functional component is at least a portion of a supply device and/or directing device for supplying and/or steering air into an interior of the vehicle via a divided airflow ([0001]; see fig. 1 showing slats both directing and dividing the airflow ) where the device has an outlet on the outflow side (generally the front as drawn; see fig. 1) and an inlet (generally the back as drawn; see fig. 1) opposite the outflow side and on the inflow side (see fig. 1; see also [0005]) having a base member (at least frame 3; see fig. 1; [0031]; [0042]) with a channel for airflow therebetween (see fig. 1) and a directing member (at least guide slats 2; [0026]; see fig. 1) for directing airflow ([0030]) which include, are coated with or are made of thermochromic material ([0026]) where each channel between the slats is ~ 20-25% of the airflow (see fig. 1, showing an example of 5 evenly spaced slats).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the functional component for a vehicle having thermochromic materials of Seki and Staite with the specific knowledge regarding the functional component for a vehicle having thermochromic materials which is an air supply device having divided and directed airflow of Schneider. This is because use of this use of such dividing of the airflow with slats having thermochromic material allows for directing the air over the slats as desired which provides a structure where “the temperature of the air flow can be intuitively and correctly perceived by an observer” ([0017] of Schneider). This is important in order to inform an end user of the vehicle whether the heating is on or off while directing the airflow.
Regarding claim 34, Seki, Staite and Schneider do not directly and specifically state that the portion of the air that flows through the channel directing portion is a maximum of 10% by volume.
However, Schneider does disclose a device/functional component for a vehicle ([0001]) having at least one temperature-sensitive material (at least 4 and/or 5; see fig. 1; [0042]; [0007]) and the functional component is at least a portion of a supply device and/or directing device for supplying and/or steering air into an interior of the vehicle via a divided airflow ([0001]; see fig. 1 showing slats both directing and dividing the airflow ) where the device has an outlet on the outflow side (generally the front as drawn; see fig. 1) and an inlet (generally the back as drawn; see fig. 1) opposite the outflow side and on the inflow side (see fig. 1; see also [0005]) having a base member (at least frame 3; see fig. 1; [0031]; [0042]) with a channel for airflow therebetween (see fig. 1) and a directing member (at least guide slats 2; [0026]; see fig. 1) for directing airflow ([0030]) which include, are coated with or are made of thermochromic material ([0026]) where each channel between the slats is ~ 20-25% of the airflow (see fig. 1, showing an example of 5 evenly spaced slats).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ~20-25% dividing of Schneider with a more restrictive dividing such as less than 10%. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected increasing the number of airflow direction and temperature indication slats to be one of several straightforward ways of adding granularity to the direction of the airflow since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device (here slats for dividing and directing airflow) involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP COTEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/PHILIP L COTEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN/ SPE, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights