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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 8/12/26 has been entered. Claims 1-16 and 19-22 remain pending in the application. Application’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 5/13/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amended claim 1 to include new subject matter, an updated rejection is included below. Applicant asserts that Pierres having benefits of a single axis means that a modification cannot be made to the single axis. Examiner asserts that modification is proper due to the motivation provided in the rejection below.
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.
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, 13-14, 16, 19-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11833881 to Pierres et al. (Pierres) in view of CN207257295 to Li et al. (Li).
Regarding claim 1 and 16, Pierres teaches a valve housing defining an internal space (Figure 1), the valve housing including: a first inlet via which a first input air is flowable into a first intake region of the internal space (FR flowing through top graded inlet shown in Figure 1); a second inlet via which a second input air is flowable into a second intake region of the internal space (FE flowing through inlet on the back of the device, Figure 1); and a plurality of airflow openings including a first airflow opening and a second airflow opening (airflow openings located at valves, 27, 28, and 30 on either side leading from FR and FE, Figures 3 and 4); and a plurality of adjustable valves disposed in the valve housing between the first intake region and the second intake region (27, 28, and 30, Figures 3 and 4); wherein the plurality of adjustable valves includes: a first valve adjustable about a first axis to selectively open and close the first airflow opening with respect to the first intake region and the second intake region; and a second valve adjustable about a second axis to selectively open and close the second airflow opening with respect to the first intake region and the second intake region (all valves 27, 28, and 30 meet this limitation, Figures 3 and 4 with axis defined at B).
Pierres is silent on the axis being a different axis.
Li teaches the axis being a different axis (shown in Figures 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pierres with the teachings of Li to provide the axis being a different axis. Doing so would allow for the valves to be different sizes and would allow for a simplified actuator structure in order to operate the valves separately.
Regarding claim 2, Pierres is silent on wherein the first axis and the second axis extend parallel to one another and are disposed offset from one another.
Li teaches wherein the first axis and the second axis extend parallel to one another and are disposed offset from one another (shown in Figures 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pierres with the teachings of Li to provide wherein the first axis and the second axis extend parallel to one another and are disposed offset from one another. Doing so would allow for the valves to be different sizes and would allow for a simplified actuator structure in order to operate the valves separately.
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Pierres teaches wherein the first axis and the second axis are offset from one another vertically (this is considered an intended use limitation and is dependent on the orientation of the modified device and would be taught when the device is oriented at any position other that the ones shown in Figures 1-4).
Regarding claims 4-5, the modified device of Pierres teaches wherein the first axis and the second axis are offset from one another horizontally (shown in Figures 1-4 of Pierres).
Regarding claim 6, Pierres teaches wherein: the first valve is adjustable about the first axis to: a first position in which the first valve closes the first airflow opening with respect to the second intake region and does not close the first airflow opening with respect to the first intake region such that the first input air is permitted to flow through the first airflow opening and the second input air is restricted from flowing through the first airflow opening; and a second position in which the first valve closes the first airflow opening with respect to the first intake region and does not close the first airflow opening with respect to the second intake region such that the second input air is permitted to flow through the first airflow opening and the first input air is restricted from flowing through the first airflow opening; and the second valve is adjustable about the second axis to: a first position in which the second valve closes the second airflow opening with respect to the second intake region and does not close the second airflow opening with respect to the first intake region such that the first input air is permitted to flow through the second airflow opening and the second input air is restricted from flowing through the second airflow opening; a second position in which the second valve closes the second airflow opening with respect to the first intake region and does not close the second airflow opening with respect to the second intake region such that the second input air is permitted to flow through the second airflow opening and the first input air is restricted from flowing through the second airflow opening (all valves 27, 28, and 30 meet this limitation as shown in Figures 3-5).
Regarding claim 13, Pierres teaches wherein: the plurality of airflow openings further includes a third airflow opening; and the plurality of valves further includes a third valve adjustable about the second axis to selectively open and close the third airflow opening with respect to the first intake region and the second intake region (any of valve 27, 28, or 30 not previously used in claim 1).
Regarding claims 14 and 22, Pierres teaches wherein the first valve is disposed between the second valve and the third valve (27 can be considered the first valve).
Regarding claim 19, Pierres teaches a blower assembly connected to the valve assembly and in fluid communication with the internal space of the valve housing (1, Figure 1); the blower assembly includes a blower housing, the blower housing including (i) a first airflow section for conducting a first airflow and (ii) a second airflow section for conducting a separate, second airflow (shown in Figure 1); the blower housing defines an internal space including (i) a first airflow region disposed in the first airflow section of the blower housing and (ii) a second airflow region disposed in the second airflow section of the blower housing; and the first intake region and the second intake region of the valve housing are in selective fluid communication with: the first airflow region of the blower housing via the first airflow opening of the valve housing such that the first input air and the second input air are flowable into and through the first airflow section of the blower housing as the first airflow; and the second airflow region of the blower housing via the second airflow opening of the valve housing such that the first input air and the second input air are flowable into and through the second airflow section of the blower housing as the second airflow (shown in Figures 1-3 and disclosed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 20, Pierres teaches the blower housing includes a funnel arranged in the internal space of the blower housing; and the first airflow opening of the valve housing and the first airflow section of the blower housing are in fluid communication via the funnel (a narrowing can be seen in Figures 1-2 which is considered a funnel).
Claim(s) 7-11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierres in view of DE102020205413 to Haupt et al. (Haupt).
Regarding claim 7, Pierres is silent on a first actuator configured to adjust the first valve about the first axis; a first shaft connecting the first valve to the first actuator; a second actuator configured to adjust the second valve about the second axis; and a second shaft connecting the second valve to the second actuator; wherein the first shaft defines the first axis and the second shaft defines the second axis.
Haupt teaches a first actuator configured to adjust the first valve about the first axis; a first shaft connecting the first valve to the first actuator; a second actuator configured to adjust the second valve about the second axis; and a second shaft connecting the second valve to the second actuator; wherein the first shaft defines the first axis and the second shaft defines the second axis (Page 16, Paragraph 2 of translation, “Alternatively, each of the flaps 240 , 250 , 260 operated as desired by their own independently controlled actuator”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pierres with the teachings of Haupt to provide a first actuator configured to adjust the first valve about the first axis; a first shaft connecting the first valve to the first actuator; a second actuator configured to adjust the second valve about the second axis; and a second shaft connecting the second valve to the second actuator; wherein the first shaft defines the first axis and the second shaft defines the second axis. Doing so would be an equivalent alternative as noted in Haupt.
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Pierres teaches wherein the first actuator and the second actuator are disposed outside of the valve housing (70, Figure 1 of Haupt disclosed that it can be multiple actuators per Page 16, Paragraph 2 of translation).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Pierres is silent on wherein the first actuator is disposed on a first side of the valve housing; and the second actuator is disposed on an opposite, second side of the valve housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide wherein the first actuator is disposed on a first side of the valve housing; and the second actuator is disposed on an opposite, second side of the valve housing, since it has been held that mere relocation of an element would not have modified the operation of the device. (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Pierre teaches wherein the valve housing includes a valve support arranged in the internal space between the first intake region and the second intake region, wherein: the first shaft extends through a first shaft recess of the valve housing and a first shaft recess of the valve support and is supported by the valve housing and the valve support (supports shown extending from 39 in between valves 28, 27, and 30 in Figure 3 of Pierres); and the second shaft extends through a second shaft recess of the valve housing and a second shaft recess of the valve support and is supported by the valve housing and the valve support (Haupt teaches the second shaft and the supports of the would be applied to the second shaft as well).
Regarding claim 11, Pierre teaches wherein the first airflow opening is disposed in and defined by the valve support (shown in Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, Pierres is silent on a first actuator configured to adjust the first valve about the first axis; a first shaft connecting the first valve to the first actuator; a second actuator configured to adjust the second valve and the third valve about the second axis; and a second shaft connecting the second valve and the third valve to the second actuator; wherein the first shaft defines the first axis and the second shaft defines the second axis.
Haupt teaches a first actuator configured to adjust the first valve about the first axis; a first shaft connecting the first valve to the first actuator; a second actuator configured to adjust the second valve and the third valve about the second axis; and a second shaft connecting the second valve and the third valve to the second actuator; wherein the first shaft defines the first axis and the second shaft defines the second axis. (Page 16, Paragraph 2 of translation, “Alternatively, each of the flaps 240 , 250 , 260 operated as desired by their own independently controlled actuator” and Pierre supplies shafts for the axes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pierres with the teachings of Haupt to provide a first actuator configured to adjust the first valve about the first axis; a first shaft connecting the first valve to the first actuator; a second actuator configured to adjust the second valve about the second axis; and a second shaft connecting the second valve to the second actuator; wherein the first shaft defines the first axis and the second shaft defines the second axis. Doing so would be an equivalent alternative as noted in Haupt.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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 prior art does not provide a reasonable combination to teach “wherein the first shaft extends only part way through the valve housing” in combination with all the intervening claims.
Claim 21 is allowed.
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 STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights