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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I comprising claims 1-10 and 15 in the reply filed on 9/14/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/14/26.
NOTE: If the claims being examined are ever in condition for allowance, it’s noted that withdrawn claims must be cancelled or be eligible for rejoinder before the application is in a state for allowance.
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, line 2: drive device. The nonce term “device” is modified by functional language “drive” and “configured to generate a drive force”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a drive motor, as specified in Par. 0225 of the PGPUB, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 1, lines 5-7: first drive force transmission mechanism. The nonce term “mechanism” is modified by functional language “drive force transmission” and “configured to transmit the drive force, which is generated by the drive device, to the slide door at a speed reduction ratio which is predetermined”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a first link plate, second link plate, first face gear, second face gear, and fourth face gear, as specified in Par. 0104 of the PGPUB, and equivalents thereof.
The same interpretation applies to claims 2-10.
Claim 1, lines 8-11: second drive force transmission mechanism. The nonce term “mechanism” is modified by functional language “drive force transmission” and “configured to transmit the drive force, which is generated by the drive device, to the slide door at a speed reduction ratio which is different from the speed reduction ratio of the first drive force transmission mechanism”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a first link plate, third face gear, and fourth face gear, as specified in Par. 0105 of the PGPUB, and equivalents thereof.
The same interpretation applies to claims 2-10.
Claim 1, lines 8-11: transmission path switch device. The nonce term “device” is modified by functional language “transmission path switch” and “configured to switch a transmission path, along which the drive force is transmitted from the drive device toward the slide door, to one of the first drive force transmission mechanism and the second drive force transmission mechanism”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a first link groove, second link groove, third link groove, and two link pins, as specified in Par. 0091 of the PGPUB, and equivalents thereof.
The same interpretation applies to claims 4 and 7-9.
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 1-10 and 15 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.
Regarding Claim 1, line 14, “a transmission path switch device that is configured to switch a transmission path…to one of the first drive force transmission mechanism and the second drive force transmission mechanism” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if 1) “to one of the” holds precedence, so the transmission path is either the first drive force transmission mechanism or the second drive force transmission mechanism or if 2) “and” hold precedence, so the transmission path comprises the first drive force transmission mechanism and the second drive force transmission mechanism. Looking to the figures for clarification, it is hard to ascertain which components comprise the first drive force transmission mechanism 10 as compared to the second drive force transmission mechanism 15 because element numbers 10 and 15 are only ambiguously identified in elected Figs. 2-3. Based on Par. 0169 of the PGPUB, it appears the first interpretation is correct, while Par. 0163 of the PGPUB repeats substantially the same limitation as is recited in the claim. When the first drive force transmission mechanism as recited in claim 1 is interpreted under 112f, the corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a first link plate, second link plate, first face gear, second face gear, and fourth face gear, as specified in Par. 0104 of the PGPUB, and equivalents thereof. When the second drive force transmission mechanism as recited in claim 1 is interpreted under 112f, the corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a first link plate, third face gear, and fourth face gear, as specified in Par. 0105 of the PGPUB, and equivalents thereof. Therefore, it appears to one of the” holds precedence, so the transmission path is either the first drive force transmission mechanism or the second drive force transmission mechanism. For the purposes of substantiative examination, this is how the limitation is interpreted.
Examiner suggest amending the claim to read “a transmission path switch device that is configured to switch a transmission path…to one of the first drive force transmission mechanism or
Claim 3, lines 2 and 5; claim 4, lines 3, 5, 9, and 11; claim 5, lines 2 and 5; and claim 6, line 2 should be amended to recite the “first drive force transmission mechanism or
NOTE: Please ensure plurality recited in the claim is consistent if the above amendments are made. For example, if the above amendment is made, claim 5, line 5, should read “includes” (emphasis added) instead of “include” as currently recited.
Claims 2-10 and 15 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from base claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, line 1, “the plurality of mechanism components” (emphasis added) lacks antecedent basis.
Amending claim 3 to depend from claim 2 would overcome this rejection.
Amendments to the claims are kindly requested for clarification.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagano et al. (WO 2019189283 A1, hereafter Nagano).
Reference is made to the attached Japanese to English machine translation of Nagano ‘283.
Regarding claim 1, Nagano discloses a link mechanism (Fig. 4, drive mechanism 10, which includes gears and a rack and pinion mechanism that links actuator 11 to the upper shaft 7 and lower shaft 9 and therefore comprises a ‘link mechanism’) comprising:
a drive device that is configured to generate a drive force (Fig. 4, actuator 11 and Par. 0035, rotational driving force);
a slide door that is configured to be moved by an action of the drive force generated by the drive device (Fig. 4, upper mix door 6).
a first drive force transmission mechanism that is configured to transmit the drive force, which is generated by the drive device, to the slide door at a speed reduction ratio which is predetermined (Fig. 5, circle diameter R22 and circle diameter R32 and Pars. 0052-0053 and 0060, which discloses that circle diameter R22 and circle diameter R32 meshing together results in a rotational phase of the drive pinion 20 in the range of 60° to 80° which causes the upper mix door 6 to move a relatively large speed. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, a ‘first drive force transmission mechanism’ is a first link plate, second link plate, first face gear, second face gear, and fourth face gear and equivalents thereof. Given circle diameter R22 and circle diameter R32 have the same or substantially the same function as the disclosed first drive force transmission mechanism because they transmit the drive force, which is generated by the actuator (i.e., drive device), to the upper mix door (i.e., slide door) at a speed reduction ratio which is predetermined, the circle diameter R22 and circle diameter R32 comprise an equivalent thereof. Note the speed reduction ratio is predetermined by the number of teeth on circle diameter R22 and circle diameter R32. See MPEP 2183 (A));
a second drive force transmission mechanism that is configured to transmit the drive force, which is generated by the drive device, to the slide door at a speed reduction ratio which is different from the speed reduction ratio of the first drive force transmission mechanism (Fig. 5, circle diameter R21 and circle diameter R31 and Pars. 0052-0053 and 0060, which discloses that circle diameter R21 and circle diameter R31 meshing together results in a rotational phase of the drive pinion 20 in the range of 0° to 60° and 80° to 200° which causes the upper mix door 6 to move a relatively small speed. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, a ‘second drive force transmission mechanism’ is a first link plate, third face gear, and fourth face gear and equivalents thereof. Given circle diameter R21 and circle diameter R31 have the same or substantially the same function as the disclosed first drive force transmission mechanism because they transmit the drive force, which is generated by the actuator (i.e., drive device), to the upper mix door (i.e., slide door) at a speed reduction ratio which is different from the speed reduction ratio of the first drive force transmission mechanism, the circle diameter R22 and circle diameter R32 comprise an equivalent thereof. Note the speed reduction ratio of the second drive force transmission mechanism is determined by the number of teeth on circle diameter R21 and circle diameter R31, therefore the speed reduction ratio of the second drive force transmission mechanism is different from the speed reduction ratio of the first drive force transmission mechanism because the number of teeth on circle diameter R21 and circle diameter R31 is different from the number of teeth on circle diameter R22 and circle diameter R32. See MPEP 2183 (A).); and
a transmission path switch device that is configured to switch a transmission path, along which the drive force is transmitted from the drive device toward the slide door, to one of the first drive force transmission mechanism and the second drive force transmission mechanism (Fig. 5 and Par. 0060, drive pinion 20, which, at different angles, switches the transmission path of the drive force generated by the actuator to one of the circle diameter R22 and circle diameter R32 or the circle diameter R21 and circle diameter R31. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, a ‘transmission path switch device’ is a first link groove, second link groove, third link groove, and two link pins and equivalents thereof. Given drive pinion 20 has the same or substantially the same function as the disclosed transmission path switch device because it switches the path the drive force is transmitted (i.e., transmission path), along which the drive force is transmitted from the actuator (i.e., drive device) toward the upper mix door (i.e., slide door), to one of the circle diameter R22 and circle diameter R32 (i.e., first drive force transmission mechanism) and the circle diameter R21 and circle diameter R31 (i.e., second drive force transmission mechanism), the drive pinion 20 is an equivalent thereof. See MPEP 2183 (A).).
Regarding claim 3, Nagano discloses the link mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of mechanism components (Fig. 5, drive pinion 20 and upper driven pinion 30) of the second drive force transmission mechanism (Fig. 5, circle diameter R21 and circle diameter R31 and Par. 0060, which discloses meshing between circle diameter R21 and circle diameter R31 results in a rotational phase of the drive pinion 20 in the range of 0° to 60° and 80° to 200°), which has the speed reduction ratio higher (Par. 0060, “The upper air mix door 6 moves at a relatively small speed when the rotational phase of the drive pinion 20 is in the range of 0° to 60° and 80° to 200°”) than the speed reduction ratio of another one of the first drive force transmission mechanism (Fig. 5, circle diameter R22 and circle diameter R32 and Par. 0060, which discloses meshing between circle diameter R22 and circle diameter R32 results in a rotational phase of the drive pinion 20 in the range of 60° to 80° and that the upper air mix door 6 moves at a relatively large speed when the rotational phase of the drive pinion 20 is in the range of 60° to 80°), includes at least two gears (Fig. 5, drive pinion 20 and upper driven pinion 30).
Regarding claim 15, Nagano discloses the link mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the slide door (Fig. 4, upper mix door 6) is configured to be slid by the action of the drive force (Par. 0035, rotational driving force) along a moving path (Par. 0068, “the upper air mix door 6 slides upward toward the upper first position” and Par. 0066, “As a result, the upper air mix door 6 slides further downward toward the upper second position”) formed at an air passage (Fig. 1, air passage that connects the top left of the air conditioner to the top right of the air conditioner), which is configured to conduct air to be supplied to an air conditioning subject space (Fig. 1, space that conditioned air enters after leaving outlet passages 301, 302, and 303), to adjust an opening degree of the air passage (Pars. 0068 and 0066, as quoted above. See also Par. 0007, “an air conditioning system that can change the relative size of the opening areas of the upper and lower bypasses”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4-14 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior art reference Nagano et al. (WO 2019189283 A1, hereafter Nagano) and Nakajo (JP 3752998 B2) represents the closest prior art of record to the Applicant’s claimed invention as recited in claim 2.
Reference is made to the attached Japanese to English machine translation of Nakajo ‘998.
Regarding Claim 2, Nagano discloses each of the first drive force transmission mechanism (Fig. 5 and Pars. 0052-0053 and 0060, circle diameter R22 and circle diameter R32) and the second drive force transmission mechanism (Fig. 5 and Pars. 0052-0053 and 0060, circle diameter R21 and circle diameter R31) includes a plurality of mechanism components (Fig. 5, drive pinion 20 and upper driven pinion 30) which are configured to transmit the drive force (Par. 0035, rotational driving force) toward the slide door (Fig. 4, upper mix door 6).
However, Nagano does not disclose a number of the plurality of mechanism components of the first drive force transmission mechanism is different from a number of the plurality of mechanism components of the second drive force transmission mechanism.
Nakajo discloses it is known for a number of a plurality of mechanism components of a first drive force transmission mechanism (Fig. 9, link L1, which is driven by link L4; therefore link L1 is a ‘drive force transmission mechanism’. Note link L1 has one mechanism component) is different from a number of the plurality of mechanism components of a second drive force transmission mechanism (Fig. 9, link L3, connecting rod 43, and link L2, which are driven by link L4; therefore link L3, connecting rod 43, and link L2 comprise a ‘second drive force mechanism’. Note link L3, connecting rod 43, and link L2 comprise three mechanism components).
However, modifying Nagano in view of Nakajo would 1) break Nagano’s invention and 2) would constitute unreasonable hindsight and reconstruction of the Applicant’s claimed invention. In Par. 0040, Nagano discloses a simple configuration between rack 40, drive pinion 20, and drive pinion 50 enables the functionality disclosed in Par. 0007: an air conditioning system that can change the relative size of the opening areas of the upper and lower bypasses. Therefore, modifying Nagano in view of Nakajo to increase the plurality of mechanism components would break the simple configuration taught by Nagano. In addition, Examiner hasn’t found a suitable motivation or design choice rationale for combining the first and second drive force transmission mechanisms of Nagano with the first and second drive force transmission mechanisms of Nakajo that avoids unreasonable hindsight and reconstruction of the Applicant’s claimed invention. Therefore, the limitation “a number of the plurality of mechanism components of the first drive force transmission mechanism is different from a number of the plurality of mechanism components of the second drive force transmission mechanism”, when combined with the other limitations of the claim, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Claims 4-14 are objected to by virtue of their direct or indirect dependencies from objected claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tabara (US6179044B1) discloses the plurality of mechanism components of one of the first drive force transmission mechanism and the second drive force transmission mechanism, include: a link plate that is configured to be rotated by the drive force and has a link groove in a form of a groove, wherein at least one of two opposite end portions of the link groove is opened; and a lever that is rotatably supported and has a link pin, which is configured to be inserted in an inside of the link groove
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A 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