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 1-19 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 03/18/2024, 06/08/2024 & 09/05/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Number 10,393,399 B2 to Hilbig.
A) As per Claim 1, Hilbig teaches a control system (Hilbig: Figure 1) comprising:
an imaging unit (Hilbig: Figure 1, Item 151) configured to acquire an image of a plane including a target (Hilbig: best shown in Figure 2);
an actuator (Hilbig: Figure 1, Item 121) configured to provide physical action to the target; and
a control unit (Hilbig: Figure 1, Item 150 & 125), configured to control the actuator, the control unit including a setting unit configured to use a relationship between four or more different position coordinates on the plane and directions of the actuator corresponding to the four or more different position coordinates to set a transformation characteristic of transformation of any position coordinates on the plane into a direction of the actuator (Hilbig: Col. 7, lines 17-45; way more than 4 points as actuator can move nozzle to any location in the plane shown in Figure 2) and an adjustment unit (Hilbig: Col. 7, lines 17-45) configured to use position coordinates of the target on the plane and the transformation characteristic to adjust the direction of the actuator so that the physical action is provided to the target.
B) As per Claim 2, Hilbig teaches a position specifying unit configured to point to one point on the plane, the setting unit being configured to specify a direction of the actuator corresponding to the point pointed to by the position specifying unit (Hilbig: Col. 7, lines 17-60; Figure 1, Item 125).
C) As per Claim 3, Hilbig teaches that the position specifying unit and the actuator are configured to operate in conjunction with each other (Hilbig: Col. 7, lines 17-60; Figure 1, Items 121 & 125).
D) As per Claims 4-6, Hilbig teaches that the setting unit is configured to specify the direction of the actuator corresponding to each of the four or more different position coordinates based on a change in the physical action when the actuator is driven (Hilbig: Col. 7, lines 17-60).
E) As per Claims 7-10, Hilbig teaches that the adjustment unit is configured to acquire position coordinates of the target on the plane from an amount of a feature in the image (Hilbig: Col. 7, lines 17-60).
F) As per Claims 11-15, Hilbig teaches that the setting unit is configured to enable a user to designate an area in the image to be used for setting the transformation characteristic (Hilbig: Col. 8, lines 15-19).
G) As per Claim 16, Hilbig teaches that the setting unit is configured to enable a user to designate a direction of the actuator (Hilbig: Col. 8, lines 15-19).
H) As per Claim 17, Hilbig teaches that the actuator is an airflow control device (Hilbig: Figure 1, Item 114).
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilbig in view of US Patent Number 10,371,399 B1 to Rodriquez.
A) As per Claim 18, Hilbig teaches all the limitations except explicitly that the airflow control device is an outlet flap of an indoor unit of an air conditioning device.
However, Rodriquez teaches the airflow control device is an outlet flap of an indoor unit of an air conditioning device (Rodriquez: Figure 2A).
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 Hilbig by having flaps to control the airflow direction, as taught by Rodriquez, 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 Hilbig with these aforementioned teachings of Rodriquez 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 airflow direction control of Rodriquez for the airflow direction control of Hilbig.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilbig in view of CN108592367A to Wei.
A) As per Claim 19, Hilbig teaches all the limitations except explicitly that the airflow control device is a movable nozzle of a vortex ring generation device.
However, Wei teaches the airflow control device is a movable nozzle of a vortex ring generation device (Wei: best shown in Figure 5; Abstract).
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 Hilbig by having the airflow control be a vortex ring generator, as taught by Wei, 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 Hilbig with these aforementioned teachings of Wei 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 airflow direction control of Wei for the airflow direction control of Hilbig.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A) US Patent Number 10,690,372 B2 to Arens
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, 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights