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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: airflow regulation apparatus in claim 1; connecting rod mechanism in claim 4; and actuation mechanism in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the further housing" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Since claims 10-12depend upon an indefinite claim, those claims are construed to be indefinite by dependency.
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.
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kurie (US 5,395,029).
Kurie discloses an air nozzle 16, 16’ (Figs. 3, 7), comprising: a housing 18, 18’; and an airflow regulation apparatus 76, 76’,152; wherein the housing 18, 18’ comprises a target air outlet 74, 74’, 154 and an air inlet 64, 64’ (Figs. 3, 7), an air flow enters the housing through the air inlet 64, 64’ and leaves the housing 18, 18’ through the target air outlet 74, 74’, 154; wherein an airflow regulation apparatus 76, 78, 76’, 78’, 160, 162 is located at the target air outlet 74, 74’, 154 and capable of moving between a first position (Figs. 4, 7, slide baffle plates 76, 76’, 160 at full closed position) and a second position (Figs. 4, 7, slide baffle plates 76, 76’, 160 at full open position); and wherein the airflow regulation apparatus 76, 78, 76’, 78’, 160, 162 exerts a greater resistance against the air flow in the first position than the airflow regulation apparatus exerts against the air flow in the second position. Wherein the target air outlet 154 is located at both ends of the housing 18’ along a length direction Y of the housing 18’ (Fig. 8). Wherein the further housing comprises: two side plates 20a, 20b and two end plates 56, 58 (Figs. 2-3); wherein the two end plates 56, 58 are respectively located at two ends of the two side plates 20a, 20b, the two end plates 56, 58 are both connected to the two side plates 20a, 20b, and for each of the side plates 20a, 20b, two ends of the side plate are connected to different end plates 56, 58 (Figs. 2-3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (CN 217017273 U) in view of Kurie (US 5,395,029).
With regard to claim 1, Zhong et al. discloses an air nozzle 1, comprising: a housing 13; and an airflow regulation apparatus 2; wherein the housing 13 comprises a target air outlet 12, and an air inlet 11 (Fig. 1), an air flow enters the housing through the air inlet 11 and leaves the housing 13 through the target air outlet 12; wherein an airflow regulation apparatus 2 is capable of moving between a first position (Fig. 1, plate 22 at horizontal position) and a second position (Fig. 1, plate 22 rotates to a vertical position); and wherein the airflow regulation apparatus 2 exerts a greater resistance against the air flow in the first position than the airflow regulation apparatus 2 exerts against the air flow in the second position. Zhong et al. discloses all that is recited in claim 1 except for the airflow regulation apparatus is located at the target air outlet. Kurie discloses an air nozzle 16, 16’ comprising an airflow regulation apparatus 76, 78, 76’, 78’, 160, 162 located at the target air outlet 74, 74’, 154 (Figs. 4, 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the air nozzle of Zhong et al. to position the air regulation apparatus at the target air outlet as taught by Kurie in order to locate the air regulation apparatus closer to the target air outlet to efficiently regulate the airflow discharged from the nozzle outlet.
With regard to claim 2, Zhong et al. discloses wherein the airflow regulation apparatus 2 comprises: a rotating rod 21 rotatably connected to the housing (Figs. 4-5); and a blade 22, wherein the blade 22 is connected to the rotating rod 21, and the rotating rod 21 is able to drive the blade 22 to rotate. The air nozzle of Zhong et al. as modified by Kurie as above would show blade 22 located at the target air outlet.
With regard to claim 3, Zhong et al. discloses wherein the airflow regulation apparatus 2 further comprises at least two rotating rods 21 parallel to each other (Fig. 4), and each of the rotating rods 21 is connected to at least one blade 22 (Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 4, Zhong et al. discloses wherein the airflow regulation apparatus 2 further comprises two rotating rods 21, the two rotating rods 21 being arranged along a width direction X of the housing (Fig. 4); and wherein the air nozzle further comprises: a connecting rod mechanism 23, wherein two ends of the connecting rod mechanism 23 are each fixedly connected to one rotating rod 21 (Figs. 4-5).
With regard to claim 5, Zhong et al. discloses wherein the nozzle further comprises: an actuation mechanism 211 connected to the rotating rod 21 (Figs. 4-7).
With regard to claim 7, Kurie discloses a blade 160 is slidably connected to a rotating rod 88’, and a sliding direction of the blade is parallel to the length direction Y of the housing (Figs. 7-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the air nozzle of Zhong et al. to slidably connect the blade to the rotating rod and a sliding direction of the blade is parallel to the length direction Y of the housing as taught by Kurie in order to efficiently control the airflow.
With regard to claim 9, Zhong et al. discloses two side plates 13 (Fig. 1) and two end plates (Fig. 3, not numbered); wherein two end plates are both connected to the two side plates, and for each of the side plates, two ends of the side plate are connected to different end plates (Fig. 3). Kurie also discloses wherein the two end plates 56, 58 are respectively located at two ends of the two side plates 20a, 20b, the two end plates 56, 58 are both connected to the two side plates 20a, 20b, and for each of the side plates 20a, 20b, two ends of the side plate are connected to different end plates 56, 58 (Figs. 2-3).
With regard to claim 10, Kurie discloses the air nozzle 16, 16’ is in trapezoidal shape (Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the air nozzle of Zhong et al. to have a trapezoidal shape as taught by Kurie in order to obtain a desired airflow result of a trapezoidal shaped air nozzle.
With regard to claim 13, Zhong et al. discloses an oven (paragraph [0013]) comprising the air nozzle. Zhong et al. as modified by Kurie discloses an air nozzle as claimed in claim 1 (see above)
With regard to claim 14, Zhong et al. discloses a coating system (paragraph [0013]), comprising the oven according to claim 13.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (CN 217017273 U) in view of Kurie (US 5,395,029) as applied to claim 9 as above, and further in view of Krieger (US 4,837,947).
The air nozzle of Zhong et al. as modified by Kurie as above includes all that is recited in claim 11 except for the air inlet is located on the two side plates. Krieger discloses an air nozzle D comprising two side plates 10 and air inlet 14 located on the two side plates 10 (Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the air nozzle of Zhong et al. to locate the air inlet on the two side plates as taught by Krieger in order to provide a uniform, stable and low-loss air flow.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for allowance of claims 6, 7, 12 is the inclusion of the limitations “a second connecting rod extending in a second direction, wherein the second direction intersects with the first direction; a first steering gear connected to the first connecting rod and the second connecting rod; and a second steering gear connected to the second connecting rod and the rotating rod” in claim 6; “for each of the side plates, along an arrangement direction of the two end plate, the number of air inlets in a middle part of the side plate is larger than the number of air inlets at either end of the side plate” in claim 12 in combination with the remaining claimed elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA J YUEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL G HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, 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.
/Jessica Yuen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3762
JY