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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 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:
Claim 1, lines 4-5: adjustment section. The nonce term “section” is modified by functional language “adjustment” and “adjusts a pressing force for pressing one of at least one of the louvers and the link against the other”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a clamping target section, clamping section, and adjustment member, as specified in Par. 0057 of the PGPUB, and equivalents thereof. The clamping target section, clamping section, and adjustment member are defined below.
Claim 2, lines 3-4: clamping target section. The nonce term “section” is modified by functional language “clamping target”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is the sides of the louver, as specified in Par. 0032 of the PGPUB and shown in Fig. 2, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 2, lines 5-6: clamping section. The nonce term “section” is modified by functional language “clamping”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a U-shape on the link formed by clamping pieces 34 and 35, as specified in Par. 0032 of the PGPUB and shown in Fig. 2, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 2, lines 7-9: adjustment member. The nonce term “member’ is modified by functional language “adjustment” and “to adjust a clamping force of the clamping section against the clamping target section”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a fastener, such as a screw, as specified in Par. 0031 of the PGPUB, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 3, lines 2-3: joining sections. The nonce term “sections” is modified by functional language “joining” and “pivotably join each louver and the link”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is the fastening portion of the adjustment member, such as the threaded portion of a screw, and a shaft on the link, as specified in Pars. 0030-0031 and 0040 of the PGPUB, and equivalents thereof.
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.
Factors that will support a conclusion that the prior art element is an equivalent are:
(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (An internal adhesive sealing the inner surfaces of an envelope pocket was not held to be equivalent to an adhesive on a flap which attached to the outside of the pocket. Both the claimed invention and the accused device performed the same function of closing the envelope, but the accused device performed the function in a substantially different way (by an internal adhesive on the inside of the pocket) with a substantially different result (the adhesive attached the inner surfaces of both sides of the pocket)); Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977). The concepts of equivalents as set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant to any "equivalents" determination. Polumbo v. Don-Joy Co., 762 F.2d 969, 975 n.4, 226 USPQ 5, 8-9 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
(B) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus. Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977); Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc., 813 F.2d 1196, 1 USPQ2d 2052 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
(C) There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (1997); Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (A structure lacking several components of the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function and also differing in the number and size of the parts may be insubstantially different from the disclosed structure. The limitation in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim is the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function. The individual components of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed function are not claim limitations. Also, potential advantages of a structure that do not relate to the claimed function should not be considered in an equivalents determination under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3, line 3 recites “an adjustment section” (emphasis added) which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the recited ‘adjustment section’ is the same as or different from the one recited in claim 2, line 2. Based on the first sentences of Pars. 0031 and 0057 of the PGPUB, one joining section 21 comprises the clamping target section 25, clamping section 26, and adjustment member 27. This aligns with the structures associated with the ‘adjustment section’ recited in claim 2 and Par. 0052, which discloses one of joining section 21 forms the adjustment section. Although Par. 0040 discloses other joining sections 22 include shaft section 45, the PGPUB does not disclose joining section 22 is an ‘adjustment section’. Note joining section 21 and joining section 22 are distinct instances of joining section 20 per Par. 0030. In light of the above paragraphs and Fig. 2, it does not appear that joining section 22 is recited in claims 2 or 3. Therefore, for the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed the ‘adjustment section’ recited in claim 2 refers to the adjustment section associated with joining section 21 and that this is the same as the ‘adjustment section’ recited in claim 3.
Amendments to the claims are kindly requested for clarification.
Claim 4 is rejected by virtue of its dependency from claim 3.
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takai et al (US20140120826A1, hereafter Takai) in view of KR 20110037753 A, hereafter ‘753.
Reference is made to the attached Korean to English machine translation of ‘753.
Regarding claim 1, Takai discloses a wind direction adjustment apparatus (Par. 0001, “an air conditioning register in which fins are used to adjust the direction of flow of air conditioning air fed from an air conditioner to be blown into a compartment and, more particularly, to an air conditioning register having a structure in which fins are used to selectively open and close a ventilation passage”) comprising:
a plurality of louvers (Figs. 1-2, fins 42-45) disposed in a ventilation path (Figs. 1-2, ventilation passage 20); and
a link that causes the louvers to pivot in conjunction with each other (Figs. 1-2, link mechanism 75 and Par. 0099, “the tilt of the specific upstream fin 41 is transmitted via the link mechanism 75 to all of the normal upstream fins 42 to 45”).
However, Takai does not disclose an adjustment section that adjusts a pressing force for pressing one of at least one of the louvers and the link against the other.
‘753 discloses a wing member rotating operation force adjusting device (Abstract and Fig. 1) similar to the present invention and ‘753 further discloses it is known to have an adjustment section that adjusts a pressing force for pressing the louvers (Fig. 1, force control unit 40. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, an ‘adjustment section’ is a clamping target section, clamping section, adjustment member, and equivalents thereof. Given the force adjusting unit has the same or substantially the same function as the disclosed adjustment section, the force adjusting unit is an equivalent thereof. See MPEP 2183 (A)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wind direction adjustment apparatus of Takai to include the force adjusting unit as taught by ‘753 in order to control how much force must be applied to rotate the louvers (As suggested by Pars. 0039-0041 of Takai: “as the pressure member (52) contracts, the shaft portion (24) of the wing member (20) fitted into the installation groove portion (14) is pressed, and the wing member (20) is rotated strongly to operate… Conversely, if you want to weaken the rotational operating force of the wing member (20)…the pressure applied to the shaft (24) of the wing member (20) fitted into the installation groove (14) is weakened, so the wing member (20) rotates smoothly even when rotated lightly”) and thereby mitigate the amount of play between the louver and link due to normal wear and tear, which decreases maintenance costs, and/or allow users with a wider range of abilities to operate the wind direction adjustment apparatus, such as by weaking the force required to rotate the louvers when it will be operated by elderly users.
NOTE: It’s understood that the limitation “an adjustment section that adjusts a pressing force for pressing one of at least one of the louvers and the link against the other” is necessarily met by modified Takai. To elaborate, Takai teaches louvers attached to a link so adding an adjustment section that adjusts a pressing force for pressing the louvers as disclosed by ‘753 necessarily means the adjustment section adjusts a pressing force for pressing one of at least one of the louvers and the link against the other in modified Takai.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 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.
Prior art references Takai et al (US20140120826A1, hereafter Takai); KR 20110037753 A, hereafter ‘753; Takayama et al. (US5069112A, hereafter Takayama); and Van de Bult (AU 2006200553 A1) represent the closest prior art of record to the Applicant's claimed invention as recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 2, Takai, as modified above, discloses the wind direction adjustment apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment section (‘753: Fig. 1, force control unit 40) includes
a clamping target section formed in at least one of the louvers (Takai: Fig. 3, sections 55. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, a ‘clamping target section’ is the sides of the louver, and equivalents thereof. Given the section has the same or substantially the same function as the disclosed clamping target section, the section comprises an equivalent thereof. See MPEP 2183 (A). To elaborate, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, ‘clamping’ is pressing two or more parts together so as to hold them firmly. The section 55 of Takai provides a target or mark against which the fastening member 46 of ‘753 can firmly hold the fins 42-45 and link mechanism 75 of Takai together, therefore section 55 is a ‘clamping target section’),
a clamping section formed in the link to clamp the clamping target section (Takai: Fig. 2, holes in coupling rod 78. Note coupling rod 78 is a component of link mechanism 75. See Par. 0151. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, a ‘clamping section’ is a U-shaped structure on the link, and equivalents thereof. Given the holes in the coupling rod have the same or substantially the same function as the disclosed clamping section, the holes in the coupling rod comprise an equivalent thereof. See MPEP 2183 (A). See above for broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘clamping’. The holes in coupling rod 78 of Takai enable the fastening member 46 of ‘753 to firmly hold the fins 42-45 and link mechanism 75 of Takai together, therefore they comprise a ‘clamping section’), and
an adjustment member that adjusts a clamping force (‘753: Fig. 1, fastening member 46 and Par. 0038, “fastening member (46) presses the inclined surface (56) of the pressing member (52), thereby applying a pressing force in the direction of the center of the pressing member (52), and the pressing member (52) contracts” Per the Claim Interpretation section above, an ‘adjustment member’ is a fastener, such as a screw, and equivalents thereof. Given the fastening member has the same or substantially the same function as the disclosed adjustment member, the fastening member is an equivalent thereof. See MPEP 2183 (A). See above for broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘clamping’. The fastening member 46 of ‘753 adjusts the pressing force holding the fins 42-45 and link mechanism 75 of Takai together, therefore it adjusts a ‘clamping force’.).
However, Takai, as modified above, does not disclose the adjustment section includes
an adjustment member fastened across the clamping target section and the clamping section to adjust a clamping force of the clamping section against the clamping target section.
Takayama discloses a damper control arrangement (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Takayama further discloses it is known to have an adjustment member (Fig. 2, fastening screw 9), a clamping target section (Fig. 2, boss 21), and a clamping section (Fig. 2, center opening 25a), wherein the adjustment member adjusts a clamping force of the clamping section against the clamping target section (Col. 5, lines 12-16, “In assembling, the fastening screw 9 is tightened to load a certain stress to the friction plate 8 for depressing the outer end edge 26a of the outer ring section 26 onto the annular groove 24”). However, Takayama does not read on “an adjustment member fastened across the clamping target section and the clamping section to adjust a clamping force of the clamping section against the clamping target section” (emphasis added).
Van de Bult discloses a louver for a ventilation device (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Van de Bult further discloses it is known for a clamping section (Fig. 3, free ends 35, 37) to be fastened across a clamping target section (Fig. 3, sides of support bar 13). However, Takayama does not read on “an adjustment member fastened across the clamping target section and the clamping section to adjust a clamping force of the clamping section against the clamping target section” (emphasis added).
At the time of this writing, Examiner hasn’t found a prior art teaching that has an adjustment member fastened across the clamping target section and the clamping section to adjust a clamping force of the clamping section against the clamping target section. In addition, any design choice rejection regarding rearranging the clamping target section in lieu of a prior art teaching would result in an unreasonable hindsight rejection and reconstruction of the Applicant’s claimed invention. Therefore, the limitation “an adjustment member fastened across the clamping target section and the clamping section to adjust a clamping force of the clamping section against the clamping target section” (emphasis added), when combined with the other limitations of the claim, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Claims 3-4 are objected to at least by virtue of their dependency on claim 2.
NOTE: The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office Action for claim 3 must be overcome in order for claims 3 and 4 to be in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH ANN LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:30am to 5:30pm ET.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights