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 amendments filed 11/25/2025 are entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gruenbeck (US 10792979 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Gruenbeck teaches an air outflow device (Fig. 1, air vent 10) for feeding tempered air for an interior of a motor vehicle, comprising: an electric servomotor (FIG. 1, electric motor 21); a rotatably mounted rotation ring (FIG. 10, cam disc 36), wherein the rotation ring has displaceable fins (FIG. 10, flaps 28) in an inner region of the rotation ring (FIG. 10, the flaps 28, in certain positions, extend into the inner region of the cam disc 36); and a fixed slide guide (FIG. 8, the assembly of gearwheel section 38, cams 40, and webs 24), wherein a pin (FIG. 7, shafts 30) of the rotation ring engages with the slide guide and wherein the pin is connected to the fins such that the fins are displaced by a rotation of the rotation ring (FIG. 10, as the cam disc 36 rotates, the cams 40 actuate the shafts 30 via the pivot levers 34 and rotate the flaps 28).
Regarding claim 7, Gruenbeck teaches that the slide guide has a star shape (FIG. 8, the gearwheel 38 is star shaped).
Regarding claim 8, Gruenbeck teaches that the pin is coupled with a lever (FIG. 10, the pivot levers 34) that is rotatably mounted with the rotation ring and wherein the fins are displaceable by the lever (FIG. 10, the pivot levers 34 rotate the flaps 28).
Regarding claim 9, Gruenback teaches that the rotation ring is connected to a rotation axle (FIG. 6, front housing part 12, about which the cam disc 36 rotates) by a strut (FIG. 5, webs 24) and wherein the rotation axle is connected to the electric servomotor via at least one gear ring (FIG. 6, drive wheel 44).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruenbeck as applied to claims 6-9 above, and further in view of Rudzewicz (US 5440486 A).
Regarding claim 10, Gruenbeck fails to teach a potentiometer, wherein a position of the rotation ring and the fins are saveable by the potentiometer.
However, Rudzewicz teaches a potentiometer, wherein a position of the rotation ring and the fins are saveable by the potentiometer (“In prior ATC vehicle networks, electric motors control doors of the heater-ventilation-air conditioner units (HVAC). A calibration algorithm checks for full opening and closing of doors driven by the motors. A computer using controlling software moves the shaft of each door motor in succession in one direction until end-of-travel. Analog-feedback signals from potentiometers associated with each motor provide measured values for the position of each motor which the computer stores in memory.”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Gruenbeck by using a potentiometer to track the position of the air doors, as taught by Rudzewicz, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gruenbeck with these aforementioned teachings of Rudzewicz with the motivation of allowing the system to more accurately determine the position of the flaps 28 of Gruenbeck.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 4 of the remarks, the Applicant argues that the assembly of gearwheel section 38 and cams 40 of Gruenbeck do not read on the claimed fixed slide guide, asserting that the assembly of gruenbeck is not fixed. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that, given broadest reasonable interpretation, the present language of the claims can be interpreted to recite a slide guide that is fixed in place at least part of the time, which is true of the assembly of Gruenbeck, which is often not in motion.
Further down page 4, the Applicant argues that the shafts 30 are not pins of the rotation ring, as claimed. However, the shafts 30, while they do contact the flaps of the assembly, connect these flaps to the rotation ring assembly, as recited in claim 6. On pages 4 and 5, the Applicant further argues that the shafts 30 do not engage with the gear ring assembly and cams 40, and instead contact the webs 24. The Examiner respectfully points the Applicant to FIGS. 5 and 6, which show that the shafts 30 are connected to the assembly of the gear ring, cams, and webs (as the Applicant notes). As currently claimed, the webs 24 may be construed as a part of the assembly making up the slide guide.
Lastly, on page 5, the Applicant argues that the cam disc 36 does not “have” the flaps 28. The Examiner reasserts that the flaps 28 interact directly with the assembly of the cam disc 30, and therefore read on the claims, interpreted as broadly as is reasonable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762