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 1-18 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) 1-5, 7, 11-12 & 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE10231580A to Hanke in view of US Patent Number 6,652,371 B2 to Kamio.
A) As per Claim 1, Hanke teaches an air vent with an adjustable air exit direction (Hanke: Figure 1), comprising:
a flow channel (Hanke: Figure 1, Item 1) arranged in a housing and having an air entry opening and an air exit opening substantially opposite to the air entry opening;
at least one first blade that is pivotable about a first pivot axis relative to the flow channel for guiding an air flow (Hanke: Figure 1, Items 2);
at least one second blade that is pivotable about a second pivot axis relative to the flow channel, wherein the second pivot axis extends obliquely or vertically to the first pivot axis (Hanke: vertical discussed in Abstract);
a single electromotive (Hanke: Figure 1, Item 5) or manual drive; and
a coupling device having a slide link (Hanke: Figure 1, Item 11) operatively connected to the drive and slidably mounted relative to the housing of the air vent, said coupling device having a first control pin for setting different positions of the first blades and a second control pin for setting different positions of the second blades, wherein the first control pin and the second control pin are configured on different sides of the slide link (Hanke: Figure 1, Items 10 are on different sides to attach to the two Item 6 control arms).
Hanke does not teach that the slide link has a first and second control cam.
However, Kamio teaches the slide link having the cams (Kamio: Figure 2, Item 5 with cam slots Item 5a) instead of pins.
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 Hanke by swapping the cam and pin location on the slide link and control arms, as taught by Kamio, 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 Hanke with these aforementioned teachings of Kamio 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 cam on the slide link of Kamio for the cam on the control arm of Hanke.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
B) As per Claim 2, Hanke in view of Kamio teaches that the first control cam and the second control cam are configured on opposite sides of the slide link, and wherein the slide link is substantially plate-shaped (Hanke: Figure 1, Item 11 with pins 10 on different sides).
C) As per Claim 3, Hanke in view of Kamio teaches that the side of the slide link with the first control cam for setting different positions of the first blades is configured obliquely or substantially vertically to the side of the slide link with the second control cam for setting different positions of the second blades (Hanke: Figure 1, Item 11 with pins 10 on different sides).
D) As per Claim 4, Hanke in view of Kamio teaches that the slide link is substantially L-shaped, and wherein the side of the slide link with the first control cam is aligned substantially vertically to the side of the slide link with the second control cam (Hanke: Figure 1, Item 11 with pins 10 on different sides).
E) As per Claim 5, Hanke in view of Kamio teaches that a first control arm coupled to the first blades, wherein said first control arm has a first guide pin configured to be displaced in the first control cam for pivoting the first blades about the first pivot axis relative to the flow channel and a second control arm coupled to the second blades, wherein the second control arm has a second guide pin configured to be displaced in the second control cam for pivoting the second blades about the second pivot axis relative to the flow channel, and wherein, when the slide link is displaced by the drive, the first guide pin coupled to the first control arm and the second guide pin coupled to the second control arm are displaced in the respective first control cam and second control cam in such a way that both the first blades and the second blades can be displaced independently of one another by means of the single drive (Hanke: Figure 1, Items 6 are two control arms).
F) As per Claim 7, Hanke in view of Kamio teaches that, by means of the slide link driven by the drive, one of the first blades or the second blades 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 or second blade, while the other of the first blade or second blade does not pivot about the respective first pivot axis or second pivot axis relative to the flow channel (Hanke: Figure 1, Items 2; Abstract).
G) As per Claim 11, Hanke teaches all the limitations except that an output shaft of the drive acts on an output gear, and the output gear engages with a toothing on the slidably mounted slide link for displacing the slide link to adjust pivotal orientation of the first blades and/or of the second blades.
However, Kamio teaches an output shaft of the drive acts on an output gear (Kamio: Figure 16, Item 6x), and the output gear engages with a toothing (Kamio: Figure 16, Item 6v) on the slidably mounted slide link for displacing the slide link to adjust pivotal orientation of the first blades and/or of the second blades.
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 Hanke by having the rack and pinion mechanism, as taught by Kamio, 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 Hanke with these aforementioned teachings of Kamio 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 mechanism type of Kamio for the mechanism type of Hanke.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
H) As per Claim 12, Hanke in view of Kamio teaches that the toothing of the slide link is configured as a toothed rack for a rectilinear movement of the slide link (Kamio: Figure 16, Item 6v).
I) As per Claim 14, Hanke in view of Kamio teaches that a plurality of the first blades is coupled to one another for synchronous movement (Hanke: Figure 1, Items 2; Abstract).
J) As per Claims 15-16, Hanke in view of Kamio teaches that a plurality of the second blades is coupled to one another for synchronous movement (Hanke: Figure 1, Items 2; Abstract).
K) As per Claim 17, Hanke in view of Kamio teaches that the slide link is arranged above or below the air vent (Hanke: Figure 1, Item 11 is below the opening of the air vent with Items 2).
L) As per Claim 18, Hanke in view of Kamio teaches that the slide link and the drive are arranged in a common housing (Hanke: Figure 1, all items including Item 5 & 11 are within a same housing of at least the vehicle).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanke in view of Kamio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Number 5,052,282 to Scharamm.
A) As per Claim 13, Hanke in view of Kamio teaches all the limitations except explicitly that the slide link is made of a material selected from the group consisting of plastic, slidable plastic, and metal.
However, Scharamm teaches that mechanism is made of a material selected from the group consisting of plastic (Scharamm: Col. 4, lines 63-66), slidable plastic, and metal.
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 Hanke in view of Kamio by making the mechanism components out of plastic, as taught by Scharamm, 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 Hanke in view of Kamio with these aforementioned teachings of Scharamm 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 material of Scharamm for the material of Hanke in view of Kamio.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 & 8-10 are 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