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 the Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending herein.
Applicant should take note that there were four different claim sets filed in the present application: two claim sets amendment filed originally on 10/19/2023, and two more subsequently: 6/25/2024 and 1/13/2025.
Therefore, the claims rejected herein are the claims as published in the PG PUB published 8/28/2025. Applicant should carefully review the claims as filed to ensure the accuracy of the pending claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/19/2023 and 1/13/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicant should take note that it appears the two IDS filed on separate dates appear to be identical.
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 “motor vehicle” (Claim 1) and “at least one through orifice” (Claim 1) must all be shown and labeled 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “suspended element” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “-” (line 13 and 19) should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “front” (line 2) should be rewritten as: “front face”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “-” (line 3 and 5) should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “-” (line 3, 6, 8, and 10) should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “-” (line 5 and 6) should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “-” (line 5 and 7) should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the ““and the end of a red the guide rod” is unclear and should be amended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claims purport to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim limitation (Claim 1: “suspended element”) recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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.
Claim limitations “suspended element” (Claim 1) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-10 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 includes the limitations: "suitable for being exposed" which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-10 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 includes the limitations: "closed by complementarity" which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-10 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 includes the limitations: "the close position" (line 16) and "the distant position" (line 17) which are of unclear antecedent basis and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-3, and 9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 2/9 includes the limitations: "the hollowness of said member" which is of unclear antecedent basis and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 4 includes the limitations: "the connection" which is of unclear antecedent basis and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 5 includes the limitations: "at least one transmitter for transmitting the rotation of the at least one first shaft to the at least one second shaft, at least one converter for converting the rotation of the at least one first and the at least one second shafts into the translation of the suspended element" which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 6/7 includes the limitations: "borne by" which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 8 includes the limitations: "the structural element" which is of unclear antecedent basis and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 9 includes the limitations: "the opening system" which is of unclear antecedent basis and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 10 includes the limitations: " in a shape of a triangle, per side" which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klop (US 10,730,384 B1).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Klop discloses: A shutter device (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 18+30) for an air inlet of a motor vehicle (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 22+14), comprising
a support frame including a front (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 10+36), suitable for being exposed to an incoming air flow (See, e.g., Fig.1-10), and a rear face opposite the front face (See, e.g., Fig.1-10), said support frame including at least one through-orifice (See, e.g., Fig.1-10), with at least one shutter assembly (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 18+30) including at least two complementary flaps (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 30) that are each movable about a respective pivot axis between a closing position (See, e.g., Fig.1-10), in which the at least one through-orifice is closed by complementarity of the at least two complementary flaps (See, e.g., Fig.1-10), and an open position (See, e.g., Fig.1-10), in which the incoming air flow can pass through the at least one through-orifice (See, e.g., Fig.1-10), the at least two complementary flaps opening so that they protrude from the rear face of the support frame in the open position (See, e.g., Fig.1-10), the shutter device further comprising an opening system (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 42+58+54) for synchronous opening of the at least two complementary flaps (See, e.g., Fig.1-10), said opening system including:
a suspended element (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 54) arranged on the rear face of the support frame and movable between a position close to the support frame and a position distant from the support frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-10), said suspended element being connected to each of the at least two complementary flaps so that in the close position, the at least two complementary flaps are in the closing position (See, e.g., Fig.1-10), and in the distant position, the at least two complementary flaps are in the open position (See, e.g., Fig.1-10), and
an actuation device (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 42) configured to move the suspended element between the close position and the second, distant position (See, e.g., Fig.1-10).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Klop discloses: wherein the opening system includes at least one guide device (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 54) for guiding the translation of the suspended element between its position close to and its position distant from the support frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-10).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, Klop discloses: wherein the at least one guide device includes:
a hollow member (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 54) arranged on the support frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-10), the hollowness of said member extending along an axis parallel to the movement of the suspended element (See, e.g., Fig.1-10), and a guide rod (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 54) inserted into the hollow member so that it can slide in said hollow member and that has one end of which is connected to the suspended element (See, e.g., Fig.1-10).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, Klop discloses: wherein the connection between the suspended element and a flap of the at least two complementary flaps includes a connecting rod (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 58) fastened at a first end to the flap of the at least two complementary by a pivot connection (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 66) and fastened at a second end to the suspended element by another pivot connection (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 62).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klop.
[Claims 10] Regarding Claim 10, Klop further teaches: wherein the support frame includes a plurality of through-orifices in the shape of a regular polygon (See, e.g., Fig.1-10), with respective shutter assemblies including one flap of the at least two complementary flaps (See, e.g., Fig.1-10, 30)
Klop fails to explicitly teach: including one flap of the at least two complementary flaps, in a shape of a triangle, per side of said through-orifices.
However, this triangular flap shape would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular size/shape of the claimed flap are significant. (See, e.g., Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative shape/dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative shape/dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the flap taught by Klop modified with the specific triangular flap, for the purpose of conveniently closing the flaps together into a closed configuration when in use or not in use, beneficially allowing a user to use the system easily. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record when taken alone or in combination with another does not teach or fairly suggest at this time at least, among other limitations: wherein the actuation device includes: at least one first shaft arranged on the rear face of the support frame on a first side of the at least one shutter assembly, said at least one first shaft being connected to an actuator so that it can be rotated, at least one second shaft arranged on the rear face of the support frame on a second side of the at least one shutter assembly, opposite the first side, at least one transmitter for transmitting the rotation of the at least one first shaft to the at least one second shaft, at least one converter for converting the rotation of the at least one first and the at least one second shafts into the translation of the suspended element, as claimed in Claim 5 (emphasis added to allowable limitations not suggested or taught by the prior art).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J ALLEN SHRIVER can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613