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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1 says “for a a motor vehicle” and should say “for a motor vehicle”
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lindberg (WO 2020214332 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lindberg discloses a flap (vanes 50a-d with retainers 18a-d, figs.2-3) for a motor vehicle shut-off device (active grille shutter system 10, figs.1-4), said flap comprising: a flap body (vanes 50a-d, figs.2-3 and 8-10); and at least one end piece (retainers 18a-d, figs.2-3 and 8-10) configured to be assembled with said flap body, wherein: said flap body comprises a wall (thickness of vanes 50a-d is the wall, figs.8-10) having an interior face (interior surface 134, figs.8-10) defining an internal cavity (center channel 132, figs.8-10), and an exterior face (outside surface 136, figs.8-10), and said at least one end piece comprises a core (female key 16a-e, figs.8-10) configured to be inserted into the internal cavity of the flap body, the end piece comprising two disjointed lips (lips of the end pieces 18a-d as seen in figures 2 and 10 and the attached figure below) facing one another, each lip comprising a curved portion comprising an interior face (interior face of the lips as seen in the attached figure below and figures 2 and 10) and an exterior face (exterior face of lips as seen in the attached figure below and figures 2 and 10),wherein each of the lips comprises at least three protuberances (lips have three protuberances as seen in the attached figure below) situated on said interior face of the lip and configured to press against the exterior face of the wall of said flap body when said at least one end piece is push-fitted into said flap body (figs.2, and 8-10), and wherein each protuberance is substantially gully-shaped (protuberances create gully shapes as seen in figures 2, 10, and attached figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lindberg discloses wherein the protuberance is formed as one piece with the end piece (protuberances as seen in attached figure above are one piece with the retainers 18a-d, figs.2 and 8-10).
Regarding claim 5, Lindberg discloses wherein the body of the flap is produced using extrusion (extruded vanes, page 9, lines 19-21 and claim 4).
Regarding claim 7, Lindberg discloses a motor vehicle shut-off device (active grille shutter system 10, fig.1) comprising at least one flap as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, A motor vehicle front end module comprising a shut-off device as claimed in claim 7 (active grille shutter system control airflow to an engine of a motor vehicle and is disposed at the front end of a vehicle, fig.1, background of the invention).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindberg (WO 2020214332 A1) in view of Arab (WO 2019166729 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Lindberg discloses the flap of claim 1 with a core (16a-d, figs.2 and 8-10) with a face, but fails to disclose the core having a first and second face.
However, Arab discloses a core (protrusions 121, figs.6-8) of the end piece (110, figs.6-8) comprises at least a first face and a second face (faces of the protrusion 121, figs.6-8), at least one of the two, first or second, comprising at least one material-free recess (recess of protrusions adjacent the protrusions 117 as seen in figures 6-8).
Lindberg and Arab are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of flaps for motor vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lindberg with the core structure of Arab with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of providing a better connection between the core of the end piece and the flap.
Regarding claim 4, Lindberg in combination with Arab, Arab discloses wherein each protuberance faces a material-free recess of the core (protrusion 117 face the recesses in the faces of the core 121, figs.6-8).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindberg (WO 2020214332 A1) in view of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Regarding claim 6, Lindberg discloses the flap of claim 5, but fails to disclose the thickness of the flap.
However, In Gardner v. TEC Syst. discloses where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the body of the flap has a thickness of between 1 mm and 3 mm. Lindberg discloses the active grille shutter system (AGS) is modular to allow different desired width or height for different vehicle platforms (abstract). Having the body of the flap have a thickness between 1mm and 3mm would allow the vanes (50a-d) to be light, easily maneuvered, and would still perform in the same way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (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 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights