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 3/25/2026 are entered.
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) 1-6 and 9-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miedl (US 20220185068 A1) in view of Sakurai (JP 2015020566 A).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 18, Miedl teaches a thermal system (FIG. 1, ventilation system 1) for a vehicle (FIG. 1, motor vehicle 2), the thermal system comprising: a blending surface (FIG. 1, smart bar 21); at least one air source (FIG. 1, air flow R) corresponding to a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) unit (FIG. 1, cooling unit 3) disposed in the vehicle; a first vent (FIG. 1, upper air vent 10), including a first inlet (FIG. 1, the inlet of air guide duct 16) and a first outlet (FIG. 1, the outlet of the air guide duct 16), wherein the first inlet receives a first air jet (FIG. 1, air flow LO) from the at least one air source, wherein the first outlet produces therefrom a first plane of air (FIG. 1, the plane of the air flow LO), the first plane of air oriented in an acute angle (FIG. 1, the plane of LO forms an acute angle with a plane orthogonal to the surface of the smart bar 21) relative a first horizontal plane (FIG. 1, a plane orthogonal to the surface of the smart bar 21); a second vent (FIG. 1, lower air vent 12), including a second inlet (FIG. 1, the inlet of air guide duct 18) and a second outlet (FIG. 1, the outlet of air guide duct 18), wherein the second inlet receives a second air jet (FIG. 1, air flow LU) from the at least one air source wherein the second outlet produces therefrom a second plane of air (FIG. 1, the plane of the air flow LU), the second plane of air oriented in an obtuse angle (FIG. 1, the plane of LO forms an acute angle with a plane orthogonal to the surface of the smart bar 21) relative a second horizontal plane (A plane that is different than the first plane); wherein the first outlet and the second outlet are respectively configured to redirect the first plane of air and the second plane of air to intersect on or along a portion of the blending surface to form a combined air jet (FIG. 1), wherein the combined air jet is directed into a cabin of the vehicle; and a controller (FIG. 3, control device 5) configured to adjust a target direction associated with the combined air jet based on control of at least one of the first air jet or the second air jet (FIG. 1, fans 36 and 38 manipulate the air flow to change the direction of the air exiting the outlets).
Miedl fails to teach that the blending surface extends at least partially into a passage between the first outlet and the second outlet.
However, Sakurai teaches that the blending surface extends at least partially into a passage between the first outlet and the second outlet (FIG. 3, the outer surface of structural body 58 extends partially into both first and second air outlets 48 and 50) on or along the blending surface.
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 Miedl by making the surface of the smart bar 21 smooth and continuous with the inner surfaces of the air outlets, as taught by Sakurai, 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 Miedl with these aforementioned teachings of Sakurai with the motivation of using the Coanda effect to ensure that the air streams always meet at the same place, since as it stands in Miedle a stray airflow from, say, an open vehicle window may deflect one of the air streams and disrupt the air direction.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, the combination of Miedl and Saurai teaches that the controller is configured to adjust the target direction associated with the combined air jet including: receive an indication to adjust the target direction at which the combined air jet is directed (FIGS. 2A-3, the control device 5 sends an indication making, e.g., the lower fan 38 blow faster to bias the air flow upward); determine a first speed of the first air jet and a second speed of second air jet such that the first plane of air and the second plane of air intersect on or along the portion of the blending surface to form the combined air jet, the combined air jet directed at the target direction (FIGS. 2A-3, the control device 5 sends an indication making, e.g., the lower fan 38 blow faster to bias the air flow upward (note that the air flows meet at the surface of the smart bar 21)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Miedl and Saurai teaches that the indication to adjust the target direction is obtained from a user selection of a target location (FIGS. 2A-2C, the air modes are chosen by the press of a button indicated by the symbols on the right of the figures).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Miedl and Saurai teaches that a first vent cover, wherein the first vent cover is configured to hide the first vent from sightlines of occupants of the vehicle; and a second vent cover, wherein the second vent cover is configured to hide the second vent from sightlines of the occupants of the vehicle (FIG. 2, portions of the dashboard 20 partially cover the openings and interiors of air vents 10 and 12).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Miedl and Saurai teaches that the blending surface is a display or a surface over a display (paragraph 42, the smart bar is a surface over a display apparatus 4).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Miedl and Saurai teaches that the blending surface is flat (FIG. 1, the smart bar 21 is flat).
Regarding claims 9, 17, and 22, the combination of Miedl and Saurai teaches that the blending surface is a display on a front dash of the vehicle (paragraph 42, the smart bar is a surface over a display apparatus 4).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Miedl and Saurai teaches that the at least one air source comprises an airway channel (FIG. 1, air supply duct 15) having a horizontal vane (FIG. 1, the horizontal structure holding the fan 30).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Miedl and Saurai teaches that the airway channel further includes a first vertical vane and a second vertical vane (FIG. 1, the vertical structures of the heat exchangers 32 and 34).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Miedl and Saurai teaches that the controller is further configured to: adjust the first vertical vane and the horizontal vane to adjust a first speed and a first direction of the first air jet; and adjust the second vertical vane and the horizontal vane to adjust a second speed and a second direction of the second air jet (FIG. 1, the system adjusts the speed of the fan 30 and the operations of the heat exchangers (which affect volume and therefore speed of air)).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Miedl and Saurai teaches that the at least one air source includes a horizontal vane (FIG. 1, the horizontal structure holding the fan 30), a first vertical vane and a second vertical vane (FIG. 1, the vertical structures of the heat exchangers 32 and 34), wherein the horizontal vane, the first vertical vane, and the second vertical vane are configured to adjust the first speed of the first plane of air and the second speed of the second plane of air (FIG. 1, the system adjusts the speed of the fan 30 and the operations of the heat exchangers (which affect volume and therefore speed of air)).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Miedl and Saurai teaches that the controller is further configured to: adjust the first vertical vane and the horizontal vane to adjust the first speed of the first plane of air; and adjust the second vertical vane and the horizontal vane to adjust the second speed of the second plane of air (FIG. 1, the system adjusts the speed of the fan 30 and the operations of the heat exchangers (which affect volume and therefore speed of air in both paths)).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Miedl and Saurai teaches that a controller configured to adjust a target direction associated with combined air jet based on control of at least one of the first air jet or the second air jet (FIGS. 2A-3, the control device 5 sends an indication making, e.g., the lower fan 38 blow faster to bias the air flow upward).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Miedl and Saurai teaches that the at least one air source includes a horizontal vane (FIG. 1, the horizontal structure holding the fan 30), a first vertical vane and a second vertical vane (FIG. 1, the vertical structures of the heat exchangers 32 and 34), wherein the horizontal vane, the first vertical vane, and the second vertical vane are configured to adjust a first speed of the first plane of air and a second speed of the second plane of air (FIG. 1, the system adjusts the speed of the fan 30 and the operations of the heat exchangers (which affect volume and therefore speed of air)).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Miedl and Saurai teaches that the controller is further configured to: adjust the first vertical vane and the horizontal vane to adjust the first speed of the first plane of air; and adjust the second vertical vane and the horizontal vane to adjust the second speed of the second plane of air (FIG. 1, the system adjusts the speed of the fan 30 and the operations of the heat exchangers (which affect volume and therefore speed of air in both paths)).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Miedl and Saurai as applied to claims 1-6 and 9-22 above, and further in view of Myburgh (US 20040228135 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Miedl and Saurai fails to teach that the blending surface is concave.
However, Myburgh teaches that the blending surface is concave (Paragraph 41, “the card panel portion having a concave card display panel 108 “).
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 Miedl by making it so the smart bar 21 is convex, as taught by Myburgh, 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 Miedl with these aforementioned teachings of Muburgh with the motivation of giving the smart bar an interesting, curved aesthetic feature.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Miedl and Saurai as applied to claims 1-6 and 9-22 above, and further in view of Rafferty (US 10647344 B1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Miedl and Saurai fails to teach that the blending surface is convex.
However, Rafferty teaches that the blending surface is convex (“Additionally, in other embodiments the input apparatus 102, and in particular the center dial 104, may include a backlit display such that the convex surface is illuminated”).
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 Miedl by making it so the smart bar 21 is convex, as taught by Rafferty, 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 Miedl with these aforementioned teachings of Rafferty with the motivation of giving the smart bar an interesting, curved aesthetic feature.
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Miedl and Saurai as applied to claims 1-6 and 9-22 above, and further in view of Harris (WO 2020201673 A1).
Regarding claims 23, 24, and 25, the combination of Miedl and Sakurai fails to teach that the blending surface is configured to direct at least one of the first plane of air and the second plane of air toward the other of the first plane of air and the second plane of air.
However, Harris teaches that the blending surface is configured to direct at least one of the first plane of air and the second plane of air toward the other of the first plane of air and the second plane of air (FIG. 5b, the first and second air outlets 133a and 133b are at least partially directed toward one another).
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 Miedl by making it so the air outlets are partially directed toward one another, as taught by Harris, 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 Miedl with these aforementioned teachings of Harris with the motivation of using the Coanda effect to ensure that the air streams always meet at the same place, since as it stands in Miedle a stray airflow from, say, an open vehicle window may deflect one of the air streams and disrupt the air direction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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
Prosecution Insights