DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is FINAL and is in response to the claims filed January 14, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, of which claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 14, and 19 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant has amended the claims at issue and some of the previous objections have therefore been withdrawn. Some objections appear to have accidentally been missed and therefore those objections remain.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previously cited references have been fully considered. Specifically, Applicant has amended the claims at issue and generally argues that these amendments overcome the previously cited art. See Remarks 6-7. Examiner notes that Buttolo expressly distinguishes between individual climate controls and collective climate controls. The collective reference marker 506 indicates direction of airflow aim. This occurs within the bounded interior map of the in-vehicle components. Different markers/icons can be selected to indicate the specific components in the seating zones. Moreover, individual zone controls separate from the collective controls, allowing users to interact with the in-vehicle components (such as climate settings), specific to that user’s zone. See Buttolo Fig. 2, 3, 5 and paras. [0026], [0032-33], and [0053-59]. However, Buttolo does not explicitly split the controls as displayed in response to a user input. New reference Kim has been introduced to teach the merging and demerging of icons. See Kim Figs. 5A-8D and paras. [0084] and [0149-160] and [0174-178].
It is for at least these reasons, and the reasons cited below, that the claims remain rejected in this Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 17 are objected to for the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites “the at least on of a set of vanes” in line 3. This appears to be a typographical error and should read “the at least one
Claim 17 recites “which is couple to at least” in line 2. This appears to be a typographical error and should read “which is coupled to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buttolo et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0166056; hereinafter “Buttolo”) and further in view of Kim (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0138763; hereinafter “Kim”).
As per claim 1, Buttolo teaches a method, comprising:
providing a moveable graphical user interface object, wherein the moveable graphical user interface object is moveable within a bounded graphical region and configured to be selectively separated into a plurality of moveable graphical user interface objects, wherein individual current locations of the individual moveable graphical user interface objects in the bounded graphical region correspond to indicated directions of concentrated airflow, and the bounded graphical region includes at least one fixed reference marker identifying at least one location reference (See Buttolo Fig. 5 and paras. [0057-59]: reference marker 506 indicates direction of airflow aim. This occurs within the bounded interior map of the in-vehicle components. Different markers/icons can be selected to indicate the specific components in the seating zones; Figs. 2-3 and paras. [0026], [0032-33], and [0053-55]: individual zone controls separate from the collective controls, allowing users to interact with the in-vehicle components (such as climate settings), specific to that user’s zone);
receiving user input separating the moveable graphical user interface object into the plurality of moveable graphical user interface objects and specifying individual new locations of the individual moveable graphical user interface objects (See Buttolo Fig. 5 and para. [0059]: “The user interface may additionally or alternately include a handle control 506 for the collective aiming of the collection of in-vehicle components 106 to a particular location”);
determining a climate control mechanical configuration corresponding to the new locations; and implementing the climate control mechanical configuration to redirect the concentrated airflow (See Buttolo Fig. 5 and para. [0057]: aim “climate control vents within the vehicle cabin to a specified location”).
However, while Buttolo teaches user interface elements to collectively aim or individually set climate controls, as detailed above, Buttolo does not explicit teach a user input to separate the zone-specific controls from the collective aiming (and vice versa). Buttolo does teach specifying individual new locations of the individual moveable graphical user interface objects (See Buttolo Figs. 2-3 and paras. [0026], [0032-33], and [0053-55]: individual zone controls separate from the collective controls, allowing users to interact with the in-vehicle components (such as climate settings), specific to that user’s zone).
Kim teaches receiving user input separating the moveable graphical user interface object into the plurality of moveable graphical user interface objects (See Kim Figs. 5A-8D and paras. [0084] and [0149-160] and [0174-178]: “may demerge the merged icon two or more icons and display the same according to a user selection”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the interface controls of Buttolo with the explicit demerging/merging of controls of Kim. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose user interface icon interaction in a merged and unmerged state, and Kim further enhances the icons and controls of Buttolo by increasing the ease of use and convenience of manipulating and selecting menus and icons (See Kim para. [0007]).
As per claim 6, Buttolo/Kim further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the bounded graphical region includes a visual representation of a reference location of a seat or a person (See Buttolo Fig. 5 and para. [0059]: graphical representations overlaid on the interior map of the vehicle, including seats).
Claim(s) 2-5, 7, 8-12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buttolo/Kim and further in view of Mizuno et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0086179; hereinafter “Mizuno”).
As per claim 2, Buttolo/Kim teaches the method of claim 1. However, while Buttolo teaches the marker, Buttolo does not teach explicit reference lines.
Mizuno teaches wherein the at least one fixed reference marker includes a horizontal reference line (See Mizuno Figs. 4-20 and para. [0063-68]: horizontal grid lines to reference climate control air range based on received operations).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the climate handle control and directing of Buttolo/Kim with the reference grid of Mizuno. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose in-vehicle climate control interfaces, and Mizuno enhances the user experience of Buttolo/Kim by allowing for additional visualization improvements and also ensuring accurate input operations can be performed (See Mizuno para. [0099]).
As per claim 3, Buttolo/Kim teaches the method of claim 1. However, while Buttolo/Kim teaches the marker, Buttolo/Kim does not teach explicit reference lines.
Mizuno teaches wherein the at least one fixed reference marker includes a vertical reference line (See Mizuno Figs. 4-20 and para. [0063-68]: vertical grid lines to reference climate control air range based on received operations)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Buttolo/Kim with the teachings of Mizuno for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 2.
As per claim 4, Buttolo/Kim teaches the method of claim 1. However, while Buttolo/Kim allows a user to adjust the aiming of the in-vehicle components (See Buttolo Fig. 5 and para. [0059]), Buttolo/Kim does not explicitly teach mechanical components to reposition the airflow.
Mizuno teaches wherein determining the climate control mechanical configuration includes determining a position of an actuator controlling positions of vanes (See Mizuno paras. [0039-43]: louver motors for adjusting the louvers in the climate control system).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Buttolo/Kim with the teachings of Mizuno for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 2.
As per claim 5, Buttolo/Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein implementing the climate control mechanical configuration includes adjusting amounts of airflows through a plurality of vents that interact with each other to control a vertical direction of the concentrated airflow (See Buttolo paras. [0066] and [0078]: adjusting intensity and spread of climate control air output). However, while Buttolo/Kim allows a user to adjust the aiming of the in-vehicle components, Buttolo/Kim does not explicitly teach mechanical components to reposition the airflow in a vertical direction.
Mizuno teaches control a vertical direction of the concentrated airflow (See Mizuno paras. [0043-46]: mechanical components to adjust direction of air flow, including right-left direction and up-down direction).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Buttolo/Kim with the teachings of Mizuno for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 2.
Furthermore, it has been held that claims may be found obvious when “all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.” See MPEP §2143(I.)(A.). Based on the foregoing evidence, the following findings of fact are established:
(1) The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. The evidence for this finding includes the mappings of elements in claim 14 to respective teachings in the rejections of claim 14 which were provided above.
(2) One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. In this case, the evidence of a known method is the presumption that Mizuno disclosure is enabling, and Mizuno explicitly discloses mechanical components that are actuated to adjust in-vehicle climate controls in the same vehicle and in response to the control actions in Buttolo/Kim’s application.
(3) One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, because the role of the actuators and other mechanical components is to simply mechanically adjust the directional changes that are already occurring in Buttolo/Kim. The result of moving these functions to their own independent air vents is predictable, because the only result is that the independent modules perform exactly the same functions that were already disclosed.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing findings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Buttolo/Kim and Mizuno according to known methods to yield a predictable result.
As per claim 7, Buttolo/Kim further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the moveable graphical user interface object is associated with a first set of one or more vents and the method further comprising providing [a second moveable graphical user interface object within a second bounded graphical region] associated with a second set of one or more air vents (See Buttolo Fig. 5 and para. [0059]: can select two in-vehicle components and have a shared “handle control 506 for the collective aiming of the collection of in-vehicle components 106 to a particular location”. Therefore, a second set of components could be selected).
However, while Buttolo/Kim teaches different sets of vents based on whatever the user has selected, Buttolo/Kim does not explicitly teach a second movable object within a second bounded region.
Mizuno teaches a second moveable graphical user interface object within a second bounded graphical region (See Mizuno Fig. 16 and para. [0113]: multiple operations in separate grid areas. This is being combined with the notion that a user could select a second set of vents in Buttolo/Kim and direct that accordingly).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Buttolo/Kim with the teachings of Mizuno for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 2.
As per claim 8, Buttolo teaches a method, comprising:
receiving user input [separating a moveable graphical user interface object] within a bounded graphical region [into a plurality of moveable graphical user interface objects], wherein individual moveable graphical user interface objects correspond to individual new indicated directions for a concentrated airflow, and wherein the concentrated air flow is split in accordance with the plurality of moveable graphical user interface objects (See Buttolo Fig. 5 and paras. [0057-59]: reference marker 506 indicates direction of airflow aim. This occurs within the bounded interior map of the in-vehicle components. Different markers/icons can be selected to indicate the specific components in the seating zones; Figs. 2-3 and paras. [0026], [0032-33], and [0053-55]: individual zone controls separate from the collective controls, allowing users to interact with the in-vehicle components (such as climate settings), specific to that user’s zone);
determining a climate control mechanical configuration corresponding to the new locations; and implementing the climate control mechanical configuration to redirect the concentrated airflow (See Buttolo Fig. 5 and para. [0057]: aim “climate control vents within the vehicle cabin to a specified location”).
However, while Buttolo teaches user interface elements to collectively aim or individually set climate controls, as detailed above, Buttolo does not explicit teach a user input to separate the zone-specific controls from the collective aiming (and vice versa). Buttolo does teach specifying individual new locations of the individual plurality of moveable graphical user interface objects (See Buttolo Figs. 2-3 and paras. [0026], [0032-33], and [0053-55]: individual zone controls separate from the collective controls, allowing users to interact with the in-vehicle components (such as climate settings), specific to that user’s zone).
Kim teaches separating a moveable graphical user interface object … into a plurality of moveable graphical user interface objects (See Kim Figs. 5A-8D and paras. [0084] and [0149-160] and [0174-178]: “may demerge the merged icon two or more icons and display the same according to a user selection”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the interface controls of Buttolo with the explicit demerging/merging of controls of Kim. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose user interface icon interaction in a merged and unmerged state, and Kim further enhances the icons and controls of Buttolo by increasing the ease of use and convenience of manipulating and selecting menus and icons (See Kim para. [0007]).
Furthermore, Buttolo/Kim does not explicitly teach mechanical components to reposition the airflow.
Mizuno teaches wherein implementing the climate control mechanical configuration comprises: actuating a rotary actuator (See Mizuno paras. [0039-43]: louver motors for adjusting the louvers in the climate control system).
It has been held that claims may be found obvious when “all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.” See MPEP §2143(I.)(A.). Based on the foregoing evidence, the following findings of fact are established:
(1) The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. The evidence for this finding includes the mappings of elements in claim 14 to respective teachings in the rejections of claim 14 which were provided above.
(2) One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. In this case, the evidence of a known method is the presumption that Mizuno disclosure is enabling, and Mizuno explicitly discloses mechanical components that are actuated to adjust in-vehicle climate controls in the same vehicle and in response to the control actions in Buttolo/Kim’s application.
(3) One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, because the role of the actuators and other mechanical components is to simply mechanically adjust the directional changes that are already occurring in Buttolo/Kim. The result of moving these functions to their own independent air vents is predictable, because the only result is that the independent modules perform exactly the same functions that were already disclosed.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing findings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Buttolo/Kim and Mizuno according to known methods to yield a predictable result.
As per claim 9, Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno teaches the method of claim 8.
However, while Buttolo/Kim teaches adjusting air vents, Buttolo/Kim does not disclose a rotary actuator.
Mizuno teaches wherein actuating the rotary actuator comprising rotating a vane about its rotational axis (See Mizuno paras. [0039-45]: turning louvers around shaft using vertical and horizontal louver motors).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Buttolo/Kim with the teachings of Mizuno for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 8.
As per claim 10, Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno teaches the method of claim 9. Buttolo further teaches wherein [rotating a vane about its rotational axis] causes a change in a direction of the concentrated airflow (See Buttolo paras. [0066] and [0078]: adjusting intensity and spread of climate control air output).
However, Buttolo does not teach an explicit rotating vane.
Mizuno teaches rotating a vane about its rotational axis (See Mizuno paras. [0039-46]: turning louvers around shaft using vertical and horizontal louver motors. This includes these rotations to adjust the direction of the air flow).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Buttolo with the teachings of Mizuno for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 8.
As per claim 11, Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno teaches the method of claim 9. Buttolo further teaches wherein [rotating a vane about its rotational axis] causes a change in an amount of the concentrate airflow (See Buttolo paras. [0066] and [0078]: adjusting intensity and spread of climate control air output).
However, Buttolo/Kim does not teach an explicit rotating vane.
Mizuno teaches rotating a vane about its rotational axis (See Mizuno paras. [0039-46]: turning louvers around shaft using vertical and horizontal louver motors. This includes these rotations to adjust the degree of concentration/diffusion of the air flow).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Buttolo/Kim with the teachings of Mizuno for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 8.
As per claim 12, Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno teaches the method of claim 9.
However, while Buttolo/Kim teaches adjusting air vents, Buttolo/Kim does not disclose an actuating mechanism.
Mizuno teaches wherein actuating the rotary actuator comprises a single rotary actuator (See Mizuno paras. [0039-45]: turning louvers around shaft using vertical and horizontal louver motors. There is a single vertical motor and a single horizontal motor).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Buttolo/Kim with the teachings of Mizuno for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 8.
As per claim 14, Buttolo teaches an air flow control system, the air flow control system comprising:
a processor (See Buttolo para. [0094]), the processor configured to:
present a user interface, the user interface comprising:
a bounded graphical region, the bounded graphical region including a moveable graphical user interface object, wherein the moveable graphical user interface object is moveable within a bounded graphical region, and configured to be separated into a plurality of moveable graphical user interface objects, wherein respective current locations of the moveable graphical user interface objects in the bounded graphical region corresponds to respective indicated directions of concentrated airflow (See Buttolo Fig. 5 and paras. [0057-59]: reference marker 506 indicates direction of airflow aim. This occurs within the bounded interior map of the in-vehicle components. Different markers/icons can be selected to indicate the specific components in the seating zones; Figs. 2-3 and paras. [0026], [0032-33], and [0053-55]: individual zone controls separate from the collective controls, allowing users to interact with the in-vehicle components (such as climate settings), specific to that user’s zone);
respond to [user input separating the moveable graphical user interface] into the plurality of moveable graphical user interface objects, wherein the separation reflects a splitting of the concentrated airflow (See Buttolo Figs. 2-3 and paras. [0026], [0032-33], and [0053-55]: individual zone controls separate from the collective controls, allowing users to interact with the in-vehicle components (such as climate settings), specific to that user’s zone).
However, while Buttolo teaches user interface elements to collectively aim or individually set climate controls, as detailed above, Buttolo does not explicit teach a user input to separate the zone-specific controls from the collective aiming (and vice versa). Buttolo does teach specifying individual new locations of the individual moveable graphical user interface objects (See Buttolo Figs. 2-3 and paras. [0026], [0032-33], and [0053-55]: individual zone controls separate from the collective controls, allowing users to interact with the in-vehicle components (such as climate settings), specific to that user’s zone).
Kim teaches user input separating the moveable graphical user interface (See Kim Figs. 5A-8D and paras. [0084] and [0149-160] and [0174-178]: “may demerge the merged icon two or more icons and display the same according to a user selection”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the interface controls of Buttolo with the explicit demerging/merging of controls of Kim. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose user interface icon interaction in a merged and unmerged state, and Kim further enhances the icons and controls of Buttolo by increasing the ease of use and convenience of manipulating and selecting menus and icons (See Kim para. [0007]).
Moreover, Buttolo/Kim does not explicitly teach mechanical components to reposition the airflow.
Mizuno teaches an actuating mechanism configured to redirect the concentrated airflow according to the splitting and at least one set of vanes configured to provide the concentrated airflow (See Mizuno paras. [0039-43] and [0047-50]: louver motors for adjusting the louvers in the climate control system as well as blowers to drive the air flow).
It has been held that claims may be found obvious when “all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.” See MPEP §2143(I.)(A.). Based on the foregoing evidence, the following findings of fact are established:
(1) The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. The evidence for this finding includes the mappings of elements in claim 14 to respective teachings in the rejections of claim 14 which were provided above.
(2) One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. In this case, the evidence of a known method is the presumption that Mizuno disclosure is enabling, and Mizuno explicitly discloses mechanical components that are actuated to adjust in-vehicle climate controls in the same vehicle and in response to the control actions in Buttolo/Kim’s application.
(3) One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, because the role of the actuators and other mechanical components is to simply mechanically adjust the directional changes that are already occurring in Buttolo/Kim. The result of moving these functions to their own independent air vents is predictable, because the only result is that the independent modules perform exactly the same functions that were already disclosed.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing findings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Buttolo/Kim and Mizuno according to known methods to yield a predictable result.
As per claim 15, Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno teaches the air flow control system of claim 14.
However, while Buttolo/Kim teaches adjusting air vents, Buttolo/Kim does not disclose an actuating mechanism.
Mizuno teaches wherein the actuating mechanism comprises a rotary actuator (See Mizuno paras. [0039-45]: turning louvers around shaft using vertical and horizontal louver motors).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Buttolo/Kim with the teachings of Mizuno for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 14.
As per claim 16, Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno teaches the air flow control system of claim 15.
However, while Buttolo/Kim teaches adjusting air vents, Buttolo/Kim does not disclose an actuating mechanism.
Mizuno teaches wherein the rotary actuator is a single rotary actuator (See Mizuno paras. [0039-45]: turning louvers around shaft using vertical and horizontal louver motors. There is a single vertical motor and a single horizontal motor).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Buttolo/Kim with the teachings of Mizuno for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 14.
As per claim 19, Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno teaches the air flow control system of claim 14. However, while Buttolo/Kim teaches wherein the air change comprises a change in a direction of the concentrated airflow (See Buttolo Fig. 5 and para. [0057]: aim “climate control vents within the vehicle cabin to a specified location”), Buttolo/Kim does not teach a vane rotation axis.
Mizuno teaches wherein the least one set of vanes comprises a vane rotational axis, and wherein rotating a vane about its rotational axis causes an air change.
Mizuno teaches wherein the actuating mechanism comprises a rotary actuator (See Mizuno paras. [0039-45]: turning louvers around shaft using vertical and horizontal louver motors).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Buttolo/Kim with the teachings of Mizuno for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 14.
As per claim 20, Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno further teaches the air flow control system of claim 19, wherein the air change further comprises a change in an amount of the concentrated airflow (See Buttolo paras. [0066] and [0078]: adjusting intensity and spread of climate control air output).
Claims 13, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno as applied above, and further in view of Kang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0167477; hereinafter “Kang”).
As per claim 13, Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno further teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the rotary actuator [is coupled to a cam member] which is coupled to at least one set of vanes, wherein actuating the rotary actuator causes [the cam member] to cause the at least on of a set of vanes to change the concentrated airflow in accordance with the new locations (See Mizuno paras. [0039-46]: turning louvers around shaft using vertical and horizontal louver motors. This includes these rotations to adjust the direction of the air flow).
However, Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno does not teach a cam member coupled to the rotary actuator.
Kang teaches a/the cam member coupled to the rotary actuator of Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno (See Kang paras. [0060-62]: cam connected to the rotary shaft for climate control).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the climate/louver actuation and rotation of Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno with the cam member of Kang. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose in-vehicle climate control mechanics, and Kang improves upon the rotation and actuation of Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno by providing for more precise control and complex motions, ensuring that passengers are receiving the air flow they most desire (See Kang paras. [0020] and [0022]).
As per claim 17, Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno further teaches the air flow control system of claim 15, wherein the rotary actuator [is coupled to a cam member] which is couple to the at least one set of vanes, wherein actuating the rotary actuator causes [the cam member] to cause the at least one of a set of vanes to change the concentrated airflow in accordance with the new location (See Mizuno paras. [0039-46]: turning louvers around shaft using vertical and horizontal louver motors. This includes these rotations to adjust the direction of the air flow).
However, Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno does not teach a cam member coupled to the rotary actuator.
Kang teaches a/the cam member coupled to the rotary actuator of Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno (See Kang paras. [0060-62]: cam connected to the rotary shaft for climate control).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno with the teachings of Kang for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 13.
As per claim 18, Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno teaches the air flow control system of claim 15, wherein the actuating mechanism is configured to rotate [a cam member]; and wherein [the rotation of the cam member] is configured to redirect the concentrated airflow (See Buttolo Fig. 5 and para. [0057]: aim “climate control vents within the vehicle cabin to a specified location”).
However, Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno does not teach a cam member coupled to the actuating mechanisms.
Kang teaches a/the cam member coupled to the actuating mechanism of Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno (See Kang paras. [0060-62]: cam connected to the rotary shaft for climate control; para. [0070]: cam “includes console air volume distribution means 175 which adjusts the degree of opening of the console door 160 to vary distribution of air volume of the console vent 117 according to the air discharge modes”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Buttolo/Kim/Mizuno with the teachings of Kang for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tschirhart (U.S. 2009/0312900) discloses singular user interface controls for climate control in a vehicle (See Tschirhart Figs. 4, 5A and paras. [0028-32]).
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 Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118