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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 11/09/2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
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) 1-6 & 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3192684A1 to Grunbeck in view of US Patent Number 12,492,741 B2 to Grudl.
A) As per Claim 1, Grunbeck teaches an air vent with an adjustable air exit direction (Grunbeck: Figure 1), comprising:
a flow channel (Grunbeck: Figure 1, Item 22) defining an air entry opening and an air exit opening substantially opposite to the air entry opening;
at least one first blade (Grunbeck: Figure 2, Items 14) pivotable about a first pivot axis relative to the flow channel that guides the air flow;
at least one second blade (Grunbeck: Figure 2, Item 16) pivotable relative to the flow channel that pivots about a second pivot axis that extends obliquely or vertically to the first pivot axis;
a single electromotive (Grunbeck: Figure 1, Item 30) or manual drive for the independent displacement of the first blade(s) and the second blade(s); and
a coupling device having a cam disk (Grunbeck: Figure 2, Item 32) operatively connected to the drive and rotatably mounted, said cam disk having a first control cam (Grunbeck: Figure 2, Item 36) for setting different positions of the first blade(s) and a second control pin (Grunbeck: Figure 2, Item 44) for setting different positions of the second blade(s),
wherein one of the first control cam or the second control pin is configured on a front side or top surface or base surface of the cam disk (Grunbeck: Figure 2, Item 44) and the other one of the first control cam or second control pin is configured on the lateral surface of the cam disk (Grunbeck: Figure 2, Item 36).
Grunbeck does not teach that the second control pin is a second control cam.
However, Grudl teaches a control cam on a base surface of the cam disk (Grudl: Figure 2D, Item 21).
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 Grunbeck by swapping the pin and cam placement on the disk or control arm, as taught by Grudl, 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 Grunbeck with these aforementioned teachings of Grudl since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the connection of Grudl for the connection of Grunbeck.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
B) As per Claim 2, Grunbeck in view of Grudl teaches that a first control arm (Grunbeck: Figure 2, Item 40 & 18) coupled to the first blade(s), said first control arm having a first guide pin (Grunbeck: Figure 2, Item 42) that is configured to be displaced in the first control cam, for pivoting the first blade(s) about the first pivot axis relative to the flow channel; and a second control arm (Grunbeck: Figure 2, Item 20) coupled to the second blade(s), said second control arm having a second guide pin (Grudl: Figure 2D, Item 20) that is configured to be displaced in the second control cam, for pivoting the second blade(s) about the second pivot axis relative to the flow channel;
wherein, when the cam disk is rotated by the drive, the first guide pin and the second guide pin respectively coupled to the first control arm and the control arm are displaced in the respective first control cam and second control cam in such a way so that both the first blade(s) and the second blade(s) are displaceable independently of one another by means of the single drive.
C) As per Claim 3, Grunbeck teaches all the limitations except that at least one of the first control arm and the second control arm is pivotally mounted by a bearing, so that when the corresponding first guide pin or second guide pin is displaced in the respective first control cam or second control cam, the first control arm and the second control arm and the first blade(s) and the second blade(s) coupled thereto are pivoted.
However, Grudl teaches at least one of the first control arm and the second control arm is pivotally mounted by a bearing (Grudl: Figure 3A-3B, Item 26), so that when the corresponding first guide pin or second guide pin is displaced in the respective first control cam or second control cam, the first control arm and the second control arm and the first blade(s) and the second blade(s) coupled thereto are pivoted.
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 Grunbeck by having a pivoting arm, as taught by Grudl, 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 Grunbeck with these aforementioned teachings of Grudl since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the linkage mechanism of Grudl for the linkage mechanism of Grunbeck.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
D) As per Claim 4, Grunbeck in view of Grudl teaches that by driving the cam disk with the drive, one of the first blade(s) or the second blade(s) is pivotable about its respective first pivot axis or second pivot axis relative to the flow channel and relative to the other of the first blade(s) or the second blade(s), while the other of the first blade(s) or the second blade(s) does not pivot about the respective first pivot axis or second pivot axis relative to the flow channel (Grunbeck: Figure 5, portion of cam at Item 70 does not move the one set of louvers while the other louvers continue to oscillate).
E) As per Claim 5, Grunbeck in view of Grudl teaches that by driving the cam disk with the drive, one of the first blade(s) or the second blade(s) is pivotable about the respective first pivot axis or second pivot axis relative to the flow channel and relative to the other of the first blade(s) or the second blade(s), while the other of the first blade(s) or the second blade(s) also is pivotable about the respective first pivot axis or second pivot axis relative to the flow channel (Grunbeck: Figure 5, portion of cam at Item 72 does move the one set of louvers while the other louvers continue to oscillate).
F) As per Claim 6, Grunbeck in view of Grudl teaches that at least one of the first control arm or second control arm has a flexibly configured end which is coupled to a tappet provided on the first blade(s) and the second blade(s) (Grunbeck: Figure 2, Item 46).
G) As per Claim 9, Grunbeck in view of Grudl teaches that the cam disk is arranged laterally on the air vent, so that a drive shaft of the cam disk is aligned obliquely or vertically to an output shaft of the drive (Grunbeck: Figure 1).
H) As per Claims 10-11, Grunbeck in view of Grudl teaches the drive shaft, but does not explicitly teach that the shaft of the drive is inserted into the cam disk or if the shaft of the cam disk is configured so as to be received or inserted into the drive.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having the shaft inserted in a particular way solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that connection of the shaft in any orientation would perform equally well with Grunbeck in view of Grudl. Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the shaft connections of Grunbeck in view of Grudl in any orientation because the specific connection type does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
I) As per Claim 12, Grunbeck in view of Grudl teaches that the cam disk is made of a material selected from the group consisting of plastic (Grunbeck: pg. 8, paragraph 4), slidable plastic, and metal.
J) As per Claim 13, Grunbeck in view of Grudl teaches all the limitations except explicitly that the cam disk has a diameter of approximately 30 mm to approximately 60 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the cam diameter 30-60mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (a cam disk with a vent sized diameter), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that diameter of the cam is a result effective variable because the smaller, the less space taken up but the less movement on the cams is possible. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make diameter 30-60mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
K) As per Claim 14, Grunbeck in view of Grudl teaches that a plurality of the first blades are coupled to one another for synchronous movement (Grunbeck: Figure 2, Item 18) and a plurality of the second blades are coupled to one another for synchronous movement (Grunbeck: Figure 2, Item 20).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunbeck in view of Grudl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2022/0097490 A1 to Zhang.
A) As per Claim 8, Grunbeck in view of Grudl teaches all the limitations except that an output shaft of the drive drives an output gear coupled to the cam disk for adjusting position of the first blade(s) and the second blade(s).
However, Zhang teaches an output shaft of the drive drives an output gear coupled to the cam disk (Zhang: Figure 6, Items 14-15).
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 Grunbeck in view of Grudl by having a gear train from the drive to the cam, as taught by Zhang, 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 Grunbeck in view of Grudl with these aforementioned teachings of Zhang since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the shaft connection of Zhang for the shaft connection of Grunbeck in view of Grudl.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762