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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 3,331,940 to Reid (hereinafter “Reid”) in view of US Patent No. 10,766,459 to Farrell (hereinafter “Farrell”).
Reid discloses an airflow diverting apparatus for directing air flowing out of a defroster vent (49) of an automobile (see abstract) toward a windshield of the automobile, the apparatus comprising: a duct (10) defining an interior space and comprising a base wall (see annotated figure below), a top wall, and a perimeter wall, the perimeter wall being coupled to and extending between the base wall and the top wall, the perimeter wall comprising a first section and a second section which are positioned opposite each other, the perimeter wall comprising a third section and a fourth section (seen where the arrows for reference numerals 11 and 12 end in figure 1) which are positioned opposite each other and extend between the first section and the second section; the base wall having an inlet extending therethrough to the interior space, the duct being positionable such that the base wall is configured to support the duct on a dashboard of the automobile over the defroster vent, the inlet being positioned such that the inlet is configured to be in fluid communication with the defroster vent when the base wall supports the duct on the dashboard (see annotated figure); and the top wall having an outlet extending therethrough to the interior space. Reid does not disclose the outlet being positioned adjacent to the first section of the perimeter wall of the duct, the outlet being positioned such that the outlet is configured to be positioned adjacent to a portion of a windshield of the automobile closest to the windshield wiper when the base wall supports the duct on the dashboard.
PNG
media_image1.png
336
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Farrell shows a device for directing defrost air in a vehicle and states in lines 10-12 of column 2 that it is desirable “to deflect some of the warm air from the vents directly at the wipers to ensure that the wipers are cleared of ice and function properly.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filings to modify the defrost air deflection device of Reid by deflecting air directly on the windshield area closest to the windshield wiper to ensure that the wipers are cleared of ice and function properly.
In regard to claim 2, the annotated figure above of Reid shows the first section having a height less than the second section and the top wall angled.
In regard to claims 3 and 4, Reid does not give dimensions for the wall sections, but the claimed dimensions are considered obvious design considerations as the device must be sized to fit on a dashboard with a height low enough to fit close to the windshield without impeding driver visibility.
In regard to claim 5, Reid is formed from two plates which are bonded together. Integrally forming the base wall, the top wall and the perimeter wall is considered a product by process limitation. As the device of Reid functions exactly as the current invention, integrally forming the components is not seen to impart any structural differences in the finished product.
In regard to claims 6,8 and 9, see figure 1 of Reid, including defrost air inlet 44.
In regard to claim 10, the teaching of Ferrell makes an outlet parallel to the first section obvious to enable outputting air as close to the wipers as possible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is allowed.
Claim 7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The area of the air inlet being at least 90 percent of an area of the base wall is not shown in the prior art in conjunction with the claimed diverter device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Goobeck (US 6,902,473) shows a device for diverting air in a vehicle to different portions of the vehicle. Kloster (US 5,062,351) shows an air divertor for a defroster in a vehicle. Harris (US 4,965,432) shows a removable heating device for an automobile. Chamberlin (US 4,904,844) shows a remotely operated windshield defroster. Sato et al (US 4,766,805) shows a defrosting system with air diverters to the windshield wiper area. Yoshikawa (US 4,637,298) shows a windshield defroster which controls the air flowing from the duct.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C DOERRLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4807. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-5.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571) 272-6928. 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 DOERRLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993