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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant is thanked for their August 18, 2026 response to the Office Action filed May 27, 2026. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly, claims 1 and 2 have been amended. Claims 1-2 are currently pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 2 have overcome the previous rejection under 35 USC 112(b) and that rejection is therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the interpretation of the “shielding body” and the “operation section” have been considered. However, Applicant fails to present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Although the claim limitation does not recite the terms “means” or “step”, the limitation nevertheless meets the three-prong analysis since the terms “body” and “section” are considered a substitute for “means” as a generic placeholder which does not provide a definite structural meaning. Therefore, the claim interpretation of these terms under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintained. Note that, since 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not a requirement for patentability, and since the specification is found to disclose an appropriate corresponding structure, this is not intended as a rejection of the claim, but merely serves to guide the interpretation of the limitations cited.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of claims 1-2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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:
“Shielding body” in claim 1
“Operation section” 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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2017/0334266 by Shibata et al (hereinafter “Shibata”).
Regarding claim 1, Shibata discloses an air outlet apparatus (Fig 1 air conditioning register; Abstract) comprising:
a case body that defines a ventilation path inside the case body and forms an air outlet (Fig 2 main body comprised of walls 23/24/25/26 defining ventilation path 22 and forming an outlet; paragraph [0067]);
a shielding body that is rotatably arranged in the ventilation path in the case body and can open and close the ventilation path in accordance with rotation (Figs 8 and 15, shut damper 61; paragraph [0088], see also paragraph [00148]-[0149]);
an operation section rotatable in a direction different from a rotation direction of the shielding body (Fig 1 operation member 77, particularly the portion extending through the bezel 27, which is rotatable around an axis extending in the left-right direction shown, which is different from the rotation direction of the shielding body which rotates around damper shaft 64 having an axis extending in the up-down direction); and
a link mechanism that has a plurality of link members that operate differently from each other and causes the shielding body to interlock with an operation of the operation section (Figs 7 and 10, transmission mechanism “TM” comprising link members 79 and 86 which link operation section 77 with damper shaft 64 of shielding body 61), the link mechanism including a first link member connected to an operation section side (Fig 10 second engaged part 79 connected to operation section 77), and a second link member connected to a shielding body side (Fig 7 link member 86 connected to damper shaft 64 of shielding body),
wherein
the link mechanism is disposed outside the ventilation path (Fig 1),
the case body includes a guide section (Fig 6 guide pins 14 and 19 on right side wall 24; paragraph [0069]) configured to hold the second link member such that the second link member linearly slides in a front-rear direction along a side wall of the case body (Fig 10 guide section 14/19 holds main body link part 87 of second link member 86 such that it moves linearly in an downstream/upstream direction along side wall 24 via movement of 14/19 relative to holes 89; paragraph [0109]), and
the first link member converts a rotational operation of the operation section into the linear sliding motion of the second link member, thereby interlocking and rotating the operation section and the shielding body, which have different rotation axes (Fig 14A, rotation of first link member 79 causes second transmission shaft 92 to move, which results in the linear sliding motion of second link member 86, which causes a movement of transmission shaft part 66, shown in Fig 7, to rotate shielding body 61; paragraph [0147]-[150]).
Regarding claim 2, Shibata discloses that the first link member operates to rotate in an arc shape as the operation section rotates (Fig 14A first link member 79 rotates in an arc as operation member 77 rotates), and the second link member slides in a direction perpendicular to the rotation axis of the shielding body as the first link member operates (Fig 14A, as first link member operates, second link member 86 slides in a downstream/upstream direction perpendicular to the rotation axis of shielding body which is in the up/down direction).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
