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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
Bolt, as outlined in claim 15 (no numerical identifier was able to be located)
Output shaft, as outlined in claim 8 (no numerical identifier was able to be located)
First groove, as outlined in claims 14 & 15 (no numerical identifier was able to be located)
Second groove, as outlined in claim 14 (no numerical identifier was able to be located)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2 recites a limitation relative to “the blades”, of which the Examiner understands this to be the first blade and the second blade as established in the first line of the same claim. Appropriate correction is required. All dependent claims are similarly objected to for depending from an objected to claim.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 recites a limitation relative to “the first blades” and “the second blades”, of which the Examiner understands this to be the at least one first blade and the at least one second blade, as established in claim 1 from which claim 3 depends from. The only claim that establishes a plurality of either first or second blades is claim 6, of which claim 3 does not depend from. Appropriate correction is required. All dependent claims are similarly objected to for depending from an objected to claim.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 recites a limitation relative to “the first blades” and “the second blades”, of which the Examiner understands this to be the at least one first blade and the at least one second blade, as established in claim 1 from which claim 4 depends from. The only claim that establishes a plurality of either first or second blades is claim 6, of which claim 4 does not depend from. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 recites a limitation relative to “the first blades” and “the second blades”, of which the Examiner understands this to be the at least one first blade and the at least one second blade, as established in claim 1 from which claim 5 depends from. The only claim that establishes a plurality of either first or second blades is claim 6, of which claim 5 does not depend from. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 7 recites a limitation relative to “one of the first blades” and “one of the second blades”, of which the Examiner understands this to be the at least one first blade and the at least one second blade, as established in claim 1 from which claim 7 depends from. The only claim that establishes a plurality of either first or second blades is claim 6, of which claim 7 does not depend from. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 recites a limitation relative to “the first blades” and “the second blades”, of which the Examiner understands this to be the at least one first blade and the at least one second blade, as established in claim 1 from which claim 8 depends from. The only claim that establishes a plurality of either first or second blades is claim 6, of which claim 8 does not depend from. Appropriate correction is required. All dependent claims are similarly objected to for depending from an objected to claim.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 11 recites a limitation relative to “one of the first blades” and “one of the second blades”, of which the Examiner understands this to be the at least one first blade and the at least one second blade, as established in claim 1 from which claim 11 depends from. The only claim that establishes a plurality of either first or second blades is claim 6, of which claim 11 does not depend from. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 16 recites a limitation relative to “wherein at least one of the sliding elements”, to which claim 16 depends from claim 14 which previously outlined “the first sliding element and the second sliding element”, therefore “sliding elements” lack antecedent basis in the claims. To obviate the Objection the Examiner would recommend the Applicant amend the limitation to reflect “at least one of the first slinging element or the second sliding element”. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Specifications as filed 11/09/2023 recites disclosure for control arms 18/19, as detailed in at least page 12, Lines 19-23, however, on page 13 in lines 12-14, the specifications outlines the only numerical identification of the elements of “respective control lever 18/19”, of which would seem to use the same numerical identifiers as the control arms 18/19, of which the disclosure is replete with the association of numerical identifiers of 18/19 with the control arms. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 of the instant application is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting over claim 5 of (US 2024/0174056). Claim 5 of the (US 2024/0174056) is more specific than instant claim 1 and possesses all of the claimed characteristics thereof and therefore is anticipatory of claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 & 14 of the instant application is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting. The claim(s) of US 2024/0174055 possess all of the claimed characteristics of the instant claims, despite a slight difference in wording (cam “disk” / cam “wheel”) and therefore are anticipatory of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 1-17 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 1 recites the limitation “at least one first blade” and “at least one second blade”, to then claim “said cam wheel having a cam contour for setting different positions of the first blades and second blades” within the same claim, of which is unclear as while the Applicant has states at least one of each of the first blade and second blade, the claims have yet to establish more than a single element of either a first blade or a second blade. For examination purposes, and since there lacks antecedent basis for a plurality of the first blade or the second blade, the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read “said cam wheel having a cam contour for setting different positions of the at least one first blade and the at least one second blade”. All dependent claims are similarly rejected for being dependent from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 recites the limitations “the first blades are selectively oriented into one of a series of three static positions, denoted for example "top","middle", "bottom"” and “the second blades are selectively oriented into one of a series of three static positions, denoted for example "left", "middle", "right"”, to which it remains unclear as to whether the limitations that follow the phrase “for example” are positively being claimed. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as what is required by the claim limitations above is that the first blades and the second blades are oriented into a series of three static positions, respectively.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “the first blades are selectively oriented into one of a series of three static positions, denoted for example "top","middle", "bottom"” and “the second blades are selectively oriented into one of a series of three static positions, denoted for example "left", "middle", "right"”, to which it is unclear as to if the three static positions, respectively, are to be in fact, exactly denoted as "top","middle", "bottom"” and/or "left", "middle", "right"”, respectively, or if these are just representations of mechanical differences resulting in different positions between the three respective positions, respectively. For examination purposes, and in light of the 112(b) rejection above stating a lack of clarity on whether these denotations are even positively claimed, it will be interpreted as what is required by the claim are three static positions of the first and second blades, respectively.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein at least one of the control arms has a toothing between two lever arms of the respective control lever”, of which is unclear as to what the Applicant is claiming as the disclosure from the Specifications Objection above, seems to states two separate elements are to have the same numerical identifiers; that of the control arms 18/19, as detailed in at least page 12, Lines 19-23, however, on page 13 in lines 12-14, the specifications outlines the only numerical identification of the elements of “respective control lever 18/19”, of which would seem to use the same numerical identifiers as the control arms 18/19, of which the disclosure is replete with the association of numerical identifiers of 18/19 with the control arms. Additionally, the Applicant states “.. between two lever arms (which lacks antecedent basis) of the respective control lever (which is also the control arms 18/19). The claim is unclear as to how the Applicant can claim a difference between two things, the control arms and the lever arms, when the “difference” is of the same thing. For examination purposes, any recitation of “lever arms” or “ control lever” will be interpreted as the control arms 18/19, as the disclosure is replete with this conclusion.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-11, & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al (US 3,602,127), hereinafter referred to as Walker, in view of Hayakawa et al (US 4,653,386), hereinafter referred to as Hayakawa.
Regarding claim 1, Walker (US 3,602,127) shows an air vent with an adjustable air exit direction, comprising:
a flow channel (11, fig. 1), which has an air entry opening (Fig. 1 – the air inlet opening is located at the opposite end of element 13; generally where element 12 is identified) and an air exit opening (13, Fig. 1) substantially opposite to the air entry opening (Fig. 1), configured so that air flows into the flow channel through the air entry opening and flows out through the air exit opening (Fig. 1);
at least one first blade (48, Fig. 1) that is pivotable about a first pivot axis (Fig. 1 – the first pivot axis is located in line with the shaft in the middle of the at least one first blade, which is also in line with elements 46 and 44) relative to the flow channel for guiding the air flow (Fig. 1);
at least one second blade (19, Fig. 1) that is pivotable relative to the flow channel about a second pivot axis (21, Fig. 1 – element 21 forms the second pivot axis of which the at least one second blade pivots about), wherein the second pivot axis extends obliquely or vertically to the first pivot axis (Fig. 1);
a single electromotive or manual drive (Fig. 1 – the drive is a manual drive comprising of at least elements 32/33/31/27/34/35/42/39/40/41/24; hereinafter, when the drive is invoked, it is in reference to one of the two selections, of which the Examiner has selected the manual drive, represented by the according structure to facilitate such action); and
a coupling device that has a cam wheel (42, Fig. 1) operatively connected to the drive via a rotatably mounted drive element (see Annotated Figure 1), said cam wheel having a cam contour (Fig. 1) for setting different positions of the first blades (48, Fig. 1; see 112(b) rejection above)
However, Walker lacks showing the cam wheel having a cam contour for setting different positions of the first blades and second blades that is configured for independent displacement of the first blades and the second blades.
Hayakawa (US 4,653,386), an air vent with louver rotation gears, is in the same field of endeavor as Walker which is an air vent with louver rotation gears.
Hayakawa teaches said cam wheel (21, Fig. 4/5) having a cam contour for setting different positions of the first blades (46, Fig. 1, Col. 3, Lines 20-24 - the cam wheel has a cam contour for setting different positions of the first blades 46, all of which are attached to element 5, as the cam contour comprises of a pinion gear 25 opposite of the portion 28, to facilitate rotation of element 5, and thusly the first blades 46) and
second blades (6, Fig. 5, Col. 4, Lines 9-24 – the cam wheel has a cam contour for setting different positions of the second blades 6, as the cam contour comprises of a portion 28 of the cam wheel to move the second blades 6) that is configured for independent displacement of the first blades and the second blades (Col. 5, Lines 14-47 – when the barrel 5 stops rotating, the clutch 23 is disengaged from the v-shaped groove of the cam wheel 21, and a rod 33 moves outwardly, to ultimately enable rotation of the second blades 6 while the cam is disengaged from element 5, rendering the cam wheel and its contour for setting different positions of the first blades and the second blades, while being configured for independent displacement of the first blades and the second blades).
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 can wheel of Walker to incorporate the teachings of the can wheel of Hayakawa, which would provide an air vent where one can separately rotate an air diffusing barrel and longitudinal blades inside the barrel by a simple drive mechanism (Col. 1, Lines 53-55).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Walker shows wherein the first blade and/or the second blade are coupled to a respective control arm (43/24, Fig. 1) for controlling the blades (Col. 3, Lines 10-18), and wherein the cam contour of the cam wheel acts on the control arm (43/24, Fig. 1).
However, Walker lacks showing wherein the cam contour of the cam wheel is used for setting different positions of the first blade and the second blade.
Hayakawa teaches wherein the cam contour of the cam wheel is used for setting different positions of the first blade (46, Fig. 1, Col. 3, Lines 20-24 - the cam wheel has a cam contour for setting different positions of the first blades 46, all of which are attached to element 5, as the cam contour comprises of a pinion gear 25 opposite of the portion 28, to facilitate rotation of element 5, and thusly the first blades 46) and the second blade (6, Fig. 5, Col. 4, Lines 9-24 – the cam wheel has a cam contour for setting different positions of the second blades 6, as the cam contour comprises of a portion 28 of the cam wheel to move the second blades 6).
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 can wheel of Walker to incorporate the teachings of the can wheel of Hayakawa, which would provide an air vent where one can separately rotate an air diffusing barrel and longitudinal blades inside the barrel by a simple drive mechanism (Col. 1, Lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 3, Walker shows wherein the cam contour of the cam wheel acts on a spring-loaded first sliding element (44, Fig. 1, Col. 3, Lines 1-5 – as a result of the cam contour comprising of teeth, the cam wheel acts on a spring loaded element 44, of which a spring 49 acts on the first sliding element 44 and element 46 (spigot) to maintain engagement with element 42; therefore, element 44 is a first sliding element, which requires spring compression to facilitate the sliding) operatively connected to the first blades (Fig. 1, see claim objection above) in order to pivot the first blades about the first pivot axis relative to the flow channel (Fig. 1, Col. 3, Lines 10-18) and
that the cam contour of the cam wheel acts on a spring-loaded second sliding element (39, Fig. 1, Col. 2, Lines 61-66 – the second sliding element 39 slides from left to right, biased from the spring 41) operatively connected to the second blades (Fig. 1, Col. 2, Lines 34-38 – the second sliding element 39 is operatively connected to the second blades 19 as the second sliding element moves left to right, or cranked as indicated at element 26, as in Fig. 2 to engage element 24 that is connected to the universal joint34, and thus, the spindle 33) in order to pivot the second blades about the second pivot axis relative to the flow channel (Col. 2, Lines 34-38 – element 24 which engages the second blades 19, is connected to the spindle 33, to facilitate pivoting the second blades about the second pivot axis).
Regarding claim 4, Walker shows wherein the first blades (48, Fig. 1; see claim objection above) and/or the second blades are coupled to the first sliding element (44, Fig. 1) and the second sliding element (39, Fig. 2) by means of a respective control lever (32, Fig. 1) for pivoting the first and/or second blades (Fig. 1, Col. 3, Lines 10-18).
Regarding claim 5, Walker shows wherein the first sliding element (44, Fig. 1) for the first blades is coupled to a first spring (49, Fig. 1) and wherein the second sliding element (39, Fig. 1) for the second blades is coupled to a second spring (41, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Walker shows wherein a plurality of the first blades and/or a plurality of the second blades (19, Fig. 1) are respectively coupled to one another for synchronous movement (Fig. 19, Col. 3, Lines 10-18 - the plurality of the second blades are respectively coupled to one another for synchronous movement).
Regarding claim 7, Walker shows wherein by means of the cam wheel driven by the drive, due to its cam contour, one of the first blades (48, Fig. 1; see claim objection above) is pivotable about the respective first pivot axis relative to the flow channel (Fig. 1) and relative to the second blades (Fig. 1), while one of the second blades does not pivot about the second pivot axis relative to the flow channel as the cam wheel is driven by the drive (Col. 3, Lines 10-18 – rotation of element 33, which rotates the cam wheel 42, rotates the at least one first blade about its respective first pivot axis, and relative to the at least one second blade (see claim objection above), while one of the second blades 19 does not pivot about the second pivot axis).
Regarding claim 8, Walker shows wherein either the drive (Fig. 1 - the drive is a manual drive comprising of at least elements 32/33/31/27/34/35/42/39/40/41/24) drives the cam wheel directly (Fig. 1) or an output shaft of the drive drives an output gear, into which the drive element (see Annotated Figure 1) coupled to the cam wheel (Fig. 1) engages so as to displace the first blades and the second blades (Col. 3, Lines 10-25; see claim objection above).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected because Walker discloses the limitations of claim 8 from which claim 9 depends from. With regards to the limitations, “wherein the drive element is arranged obliquely relative to the output gear in the angle bisector between the first pivot axis and the second pivot axis”, these limitations are derived from the limitation “an output shaft of the drive drives an output gear” which is an alternative to the limitation in claim 8, “the drive drives the cam wheel directly”, which Walker is mapped to above. Therefore since Walker is not required to be mapped to the other option from this Markush group, the limitations of claim 9 do not need to be met by Walker.
Regarding claim 10, Claim 10 is rejected by the same or substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 11, Walker shows wherein the cam contour of the cam wheel has subregions (Fig. 1 – between each of the teeth of the cam wheel represents subregions, as each subregion corresponds to a different opening position), and wherein when the cam wheel is displaced in one of the subregions, one of the first blades or one of the second blades (19, Fig. 1, Col. 3, Lines 10-18) remains in a static position, while one of the second blades or one of the first blades is pivoted (Fig. 1, Col. 3, Lines 10-18 - When element 33 is rotated and the cam wheel 42 is displaced in one of the subregions, one of the second blades 19 remains in a static position, while one of the first blades is pivoted; see claim objection above),
and/or wherein (the following limitations were not selected from the totality of options),
in a further subregion of the cam contour, one of the first blades or one of the second blades is pivoted into a static position, while one of the second blades or one of the first blades is not pivoted.
Regarding claim 13, Walker shows wherein at least one of the control arms has a toothing (Fig. 1 – the control arm 43 comprises of a toothing) between two lever arms of the respective control lever (Fig. 1 – the control arm with the toothing is between the two control arms 43/24 of the respective control arms; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 14, Walker shows wherein the cam wheel (42, Fig. 1/2) and
the first sliding element and/or the second sliding element are coupled to one another via a first groove
and/or (the above limitations were not selected from the totality of options)
a second groove (Fig. 2, see Annotated Figure 1) in the cam wheel (Fig. 2) into which the first sliding element and/or the second sliding element (39, Fig. 1/2) is guided (Fig. 2 – a second groove exits through the center of the cam wheel to allow the second sliding element to move from left to right, biased from the spring 41).
Regarding claim 15, Walker shows wherein the first sliding element comprises a bolt (46, Fig. 1) that is guided in the first groove (47, Fig. 1, Col. 2, Lines 71-73).
Regarding claim 16, Walker shows wherein at least one of the sliding elements (44, Fig. 1) has a spring-loaded plunger piece (46, Fig. 1) for resilient mounting (Fig. 1).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al (US 3,602,127), hereinafter referred to as Walker, in view of Hayakawa et al (US 4,653,386), hereinafter referred to as Hayakawa, in further view of Demerath et al (US 2002/0081965), hereinafter referred to as Demerath.
Regarding claim 17, Walker shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the drive element.
However, Walker lacks showing the drive element comprises of a bevel gear.
Demerath (US 2002/0081965), an air vent with a mechanical gearing, is in the same field of endeavor as Walker which is an air vent with a mechanical gearing.
Demerath teaches the drive element (124/126, Fig. 4) comprises of a bevel gear (¶0028).
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 drive element of Walker to incorporate the teachings of the drive element of Demerath, which would provide an air vent with a single operating element that can adjust the volume flow as well as the direction of the emerging airflow, independently of each other (¶0004).
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, and upon the resolution of the 112(b) that is currently outstanding.
Regarding claim 12, the closest prior art of record is Walker (US 3,602,127) and Kim et al (US 11,556,239), however these references do not disclose when the cam wheel is rotated by approximately 180˚ starting from an initial position, the first blades are selectively oriented into one of a series of three static positions, and remain there while the second blades are configured to perform a complete pivoting movement in each of these positions, and when the cam wheel is rotated by approximately 181˚ to approximately 360
PNG
media_image2.png
14
9
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the second blades are selectively oriented into one of a series of three static positions and remain there while the first blades are configured to perform a complete pivoting movement in each of these positions.
The Examiner finds no reasonable rationale that would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Walker as it would employ hindsight reasoning while compromising the mechanical continuity while additionally teaching away from the mechanical continuity of the mechanical configuration of Walker, while Kim fails to teach all the limitations of Kim and outline three static positions, on one cam wheel, that is to position one set of blades, relative to the other, in the specified degrees and actions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762