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 2/25/2026 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, 2, 6-11, 13, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyundai (DE 202020103330 U1) in view of Yucheng (US 20220258573 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Hyundai teaches a vehicle (abstract, the vehicle that contains the assembly) comprising: a dashboard (FIG. 1, dashboard 2); and air register (FIG. 1, ventilation nozzle 1) comprising: a blade member (FIG. 2, second setting device 30 and the surrounding walls) including a plurality of vertical blades (FIG. 2, slats 32) and a side wall (FIG. 2, the walls of shaft 10) defining a rear opening (FIG. 2, the inlet of shaft 10); a shutter (FIG. 1, first setting device 20) rotatably coupled to the blade member (FIG. 1, the first setting device 20 is connected via gears and the walls of the shaft 10 to the second setting device 30), the shutter including a shutter gear (FIG. 1, first gear element 51); and a shaft (FIG. 1, third rotating shaft 41) rotatably coupled to the blade member (FIG. 1, the third rotating shaft 41 is connected via gears and the walls of the shaft 10 to the second setting device 30), the shaft including a shaft gear (FIG. 1, third gear element 53) engaging the shutter gear (FIG. 1, the gears engage via the train), wherein rotation of the shaft in one of a rotation direction and a counter-rotation direction opposite the rotation direction results in rotation of the shutter in the other of the rotation direction and the counter-rotation direction (FIG. 3, rotating the third rotating shaft 41 makes the first setting device 20 rotate in the opposite direction).
Hyundai fails to teach that, when the shutter is in a first position, the shutter overlaps a first subset of vertical blades of the plurality of vertical blades to inhibit airflow through the first subset of vertical blades, wherein, when the shutter is in a second position, the shutter overlaps a second subset of vertical blades of the plurality of vertical blades different than the first subset of vertical blades to inhibit airflow through the second subset of vertical blades.
However, Yucheng teaches that, when the shutter is in a first position, the shutter overlaps a first subset of vertical blades of the plurality of vertical blades to inhibit airflow through the first subset of vertical blades, wherein, when the shutter is in a second position, the shutter overlaps a second subset of vertical blades of the plurality of vertical blades different than the first subset of vertical blades to inhibit airflow through the second subset of vertical blades (FIGS. 8A-8C, the diverter 3 blocks various vanes from receiving an airflow depending on its position).
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 Hyundai by making it so that a diverter is installed around the vane of the first adjustment device 20, as taught by Yucheng, 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 Hyundai with these aforementioned teachings of Yucheng with the motivation of further encouraging the airflow to follow either of the two paths.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hyundai and Yucheng teaches an open interior (FIG. 1, the interior of the shaft 10), the blade member provided within the open interior of the housing.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the combination of Hyundai and Yucheng teaches that the shutter includes an upper arm, a lower arm opposite the upper arm (FIG. 2, slat carriers 22), and a blocking wall extending between the upper arm and the lower arm (FIG. 1, upper slat 23), and the blocking wall overlaps the rear opening formed in the blade member (FIG. 1, when the first setting device 20 is sufficiently rotated, the upper slat 23 obstructs the air flow path).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hyundai and Yucheng teaches that the shutter includes a shutter boss (FIG. 2, the first rotating shaft 21) formed at one of the upper arm and the lower arm of the shutter and is received within a blade member aperture (FIG. 2, the first rotating shaft extends through an opening in the shaft 10 walls) formed in one of a top wall and a bottom wall of the blade member to rotatably couple the shutter to the blade member.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hyundai and Yucheng teaches that the shutter boss is an upper shutter boss formed at the upper arm of the shutter and the blade member aperture is a top blade member aperture formed in the top wall of the blade member, the shutter gear is an upper shutter gear formed on the upper shutter boss (FIG. 2, gear 51 is a part of the boss).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hyundai and Yucheng teaches that the shaft includes an upper arm (FIG. 2, the rightmost portion of the shaft 41) having an upper shaft pin (FIG. 2, the right end of the shaft 41) engaging an upper blade member hole formed in the top wall of the blade member (FIG. 2, the end of the shaft 41 fits into the outlet end 13), and a lower arm opposite the upper arm having a lower shaft pin engaging a bottom blade member hole formed in the bottom wall of the blade member (FIG. 2, the end of the shaft 41 fits into the outlet end 13).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hyundai and Yucheng teaches that the shaft gear is an upper shaft gear formed on the upper arm of the shaft and engages the upper shutter gear of the shutter (FIG. 2, the gear 53 is formed on an upper end of the shaft 41 and engages the gear 51 through the gears 52).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hyundai and Yucheng teaches that the shutter includes a lower shutter boss (FIG. 2, the left part of the first rotating shaft 21) formed at the lower arm of the shutter and is received within a bottom blade member aperture formed the bottom wall of the blade member (FIG. 2, the first rotating shaft extends through an opening in the shaft 10 walls).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hyundai and Yucheng teaches that the shutter includes a shutter boss (FIG. 2, the first rotating shaft 21) formed at one of the upper arm and the lower arm of the shutter and is received within a blade member aperture (FIG. 2, the first rotating shaft extends through an opening in the shaft 10 walls) formed in one of a top wall and a bottom wall of the blade member to rotatably couple the shutter to the blade member, the shutter gear is formed on the shutter boss (FIG. 2, gear 51 is a part of the boss).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Hyundai and Yucheng teaches that the shaft includes an upper arm (FIG. 2, the rightmost portion of the shaft 41) and a lower arm (FIG. 2, the leftmost portion of the shaft 41) opposite the upper arm, a shaft pin (FIG. 2, the ends of the shaft 41) is provided on one of the upper arm and the lower arm and is received within a blade member hole formed in one of the top wall and the bottom wall of the blade member (FIG. 2, the end of the shaft 41 fits into the outlet ends 13).
Regarding claim 18, Yucheng teaches a method (the method performed by the assembly of FIG. 1) of operating an air register (FIG. 1, ventilation nozzle 1) comprising a blade member (FIG. 2, second setting device 30 and the surrounding walls) including a plurality of vertical blades (FIG. 2, slats 32) and a side wall (FIG. 2, the walls of shaft 10) defining a rear opening (FIG. 2, the inlet of shaft 10), a shutter (FIG. 1, first setting device 20) rotatably coupled to the blade member (FIG. 1, the first setting device 20 is connected via gears and the walls of the shaft 10 to the second setting device 30), and a shaft (FIG. 1, third rotating shaft 41) rotatably coupled to the blade member (FIG. 1, the third rotating shaft 41 is connected via gears and the walls of the shaft 10 to the second setting device 30), the method comprising: engaging a shaft gear (FIG. 1, third gear element 53) on the shaft with a shutter gear (FIG. 1, the gears engage via the train) on the shutter; rotating the shaft in one of a rotation direction and a counter-rotation direction opposite the rotation direction; and rotating the shutter across the rear opening of the blade member in the other of the rotation direction and the counter-rotation direction in response to rotation of the shaft to direct air into the blade member and through the rear opening to flow between the plurality of vertical blades (FIG. 3, rotating the third rotating shaft 41 makes the first setting device 20 rotate in the opposite direction).
Hyundai fails to teach that, when the shutter is in a first position, the shutter overlaps a first subset of vertical blades of the plurality of vertical blades to inhibit airflow through the first subset of vertical blades, wherein, when the shutter is in a second position, the shutter overlaps a second subset of vertical blades of the plurality of vertical blades different than the first subset of vertical blades to inhibit airflow through the second subset of vertical blades.
However, Yucheng teaches that, when the shutter is in a first position, the shutter overlaps a first subset of vertical blades of the plurality of vertical blades to inhibit airflow through the first subset of vertical blades, wherein, when the shutter is in a second position, the shutter overlaps a second subset of vertical blades of the plurality of vertical blades different than the first subset of vertical blades to inhibit airflow through the second subset of vertical blades (FIGS. 8A-8C, the diverter 3 blocks various vanes from receiving an airflow depending on its position).
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 Hyundai by making it so that a diverter is installed around the vane of the first adjustment device 20, as taught by Yucheng, 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 Hyundai with these aforementioned teachings of Yucheng with the motivation of further encouraging the airflow to follow either of the two paths.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyundai and Yucheng as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-11, 13, and 15-18 above, and further in view of Habte (US 20210237539 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hyundai and Yucheng fails to teach that the plurality of vertical blades comprises a plurality of first vertical blades extending parallel to one another and in a first direction toward a center of the blade member, and a plurality of second vertical blades extending parallel to one another and in a second direction opposite the first direction toward the center of the blade member.
However, Habte teaches that the plurality of vertical blades comprises a plurality of first vertical blades extending parallel to one another and in a first direction toward a center of the blade member, and a plurality of second vertical blades extending parallel to one another and in a second direction opposite the first direction toward the center of the blade member (FIG. 1, vanes 230A and 230B are parallel and point in different directions).
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 Hyundai by inserting the curved vanes of Habte, 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 Hyundai with these aforementioned teachings of Habte with the motivation of preventing turbulence as the air flow turns.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyundai and Yucheng as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-11, 13, and 15-18 above, and further in view of Toyoda (JP 6536395 B2).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hyundai and Yucheng teaches a horizontal fin (FIG. 1, third adjusting device 40).
Hyundai fails to teach a push knob slidably engaging the horizontal fin; and a fork rotatably coupling the push knob to the shaft and movable in a vehicle vertical direction.
However, Toyoda teaches a push knob (FIG. 13, operation knob 45) slidably engaging the horizontal fin; and a fork (FIG. 1, fork portion 46) rotatably coupling the push knob to the shaft and movable in a vehicle vertical direction.
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 Hyundai by employing a forked knob, as taught by Toyoda, 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 Hyundai with these aforementioned teachings of Toyoda with the motivation of making the vanes easier to adjust.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hyundai, Yucheng, and Toyoda teaches that movement of the push knob in a first direction results in the shaft rotating in the rotation direction and the shutter rotating in the counter-rotation direction; and movement of the push knob in a second direction opposite the first direction results in the shaft rotating in the counter-rotation direction and the shutter rotating in the rotation direction (FIGS. 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hyundai and Yucheng teaches a horizontal fin (FIG. 1, third adjusting device 40).
Hyundai fails to teach a push knob slidably engaging the horizontal fin; and a fork rotatably coupling the push knob to the shaft, wherein movement of the push knob in a first direction results in the shaft rotating in the rotation direction and the shutter rotating in the counter-rotation direction, wherein movement of the push knob in a second direction opposite the first direction results in the shaft rotating in the counter-rotation direction and the shutter rotating in the rotation direction.
However, Toyoda teaches a push knob (FIG. 13, operation knob 45) slidably engaging the horizontal fin; and a fork (FIG. 1, fork portion 46) rotatably coupling the push knob to the shaft, wherein movement of the push knob in a first direction results in the shaft rotating in the rotation direction and the shutter rotating in the counter-rotation direction, wherein movement of the push knob in a second direction opposite the first direction results in the shaft rotating in the counter-rotation direction and the shutter rotating in the rotation direction (FIGS. 3 and 6 of Hyundai, see combination below).
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 Hyundai by employing a forked knob, as taught by Toyoda, 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 Hyundai with these aforementioned teachings of Toyoda with the motivation of making the vanes easier to adjust.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Hyundai and Yucheng fails to teach translating a push knob along a horizontal fin in one of a first direction and a second direction opposite the first direction, the push knob coupled to a fork, the fork rotatably coupled to the shaft; rotating the shaft in the rotation direction and the shutter in the counter-rotation direction in response to translating the push knob in the first direction; and rotating the shaft in the counter-rotation direction and the shutter in the rotation direction in response to translating the push knob in the second direction.
However, Toyoda teaches translating a push knob (FIG. 13, operation knob 45) knob along a horizontal fin in one of a first direction and a second direction opposite the first direction, the push knob coupled to a fork (FIG. 1, fork 46), the fork rotatably coupled to the shaft; rotating the shaft in the rotation direction and the shutter in the counter-rotation direction in response to translating the push knob in the first direction; and rotating the shaft in the counter-rotation direction and the shutter in the rotation direction in response to translating the push knob in the second direction (FIGS. 3 and 6).
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 Hyundai by employing a forked knob, as taught by Toyoda, 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 Hyundai with these aforementioned teachings of Toyoda with the motivation of making the vanes easier to adjust.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyundai and Yucheng as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-11, 13, and 15-18 above, and further in view of Baldwin (US 10018374 B1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hyundai and Yucheng fails to teach that the shutter includes a lower shutter gear formed on the lower shutter boss, and the shaft includes a lower shaft gear formed on the lower arm of the shaft, the lower shutter gear of the shutter engages the lower shaft gear of the shaft.
However, Baldwin teaches that the shutter includes a lower shutter gear formed on the lower shutter boss, and the shaft includes a lower shaft gear formed on the lower arm of the shaft, the lower shutter gear of the shutter engages the lower shaft gear of the shaft (FIG. 3, there are rounded portions 66 (which are gears) on each side of the assembly).
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 Hyundai by including gears on both sides of the shaft, as taught by Baldwin, 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 Hyundai with these aforementioned teachings of Baldwin with the motivation of making the movement more stable by distributing the forces across two sets of gears.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyundai, Yucheng, and Toyoda as applied to claims 4, 5, 14, and 19 above, and further in view of Habte.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Hyundai, Yucheng and Toyoda fails to teach that the plurality of vertical blades comprises a plurality of first vertical blades extending parallel to one another and in a first direction toward a center of the blade member, and a plurality of second vertical blades extending parallel to one another and in a second direction opposite the first direction toward the center of the blade member.
However, Habte teaches that the plurality of vertical blades comprises a plurality of first vertical blades extending parallel to one another and in a first direction toward a center of the blade member, and a plurality of second vertical blades extending parallel to one another and in a second direction opposite the first direction toward the center of the blade member (FIG. 1, vanes 230A and 230B are parallel and point in different directions).
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 Hyundai by inserting the curved vanes of Habte, 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 Hyundai with these aforementioned teachings of Habte with the motivation of preventing turbulence as the air flow turns.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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, 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