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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
According to MPEP 609, in nonprovisional applications, applicants and other individuals substantively involved with the preparation and/or prosecution of the application have a duty to submit to the Office information which is material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56. The provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 provide a mechanism by which patent applicants may comply with the duty of disclosure provided in 37 CFR 1.56. Applicants and other individuals substantively involved with the preparation and/or prosecution of the patent application also may want the Office to consider information for a variety of other reasons; e.g., to make sure that the examiner has an opportunity to consider the same information that was considered by these individuals, or by another patent office in a counterpart or related patent application filed in another country.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
Elastic body (the spring; see 112(f) rejection below), as recited in claim 9, as there currently exists not numerical identifier associated with the element
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: “Elastic body” in claim 9.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is a spring as at least described in paragraph ¶0077-78 of the 05/14/2024 specification.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al (US 2004/0203334), hereinafter referred to as Shibata, in view of Munoz et al (US 2024/0017596), hereinafter referred to as Munoz.
Regarding claim 1, Shibata (US 2004/0203334) shows an air vent comprising:
an air outlet (21, Fig. 2) that is open on one side and configured to discharge air (Fig. 3);
a first wing (4, Fig. 2) that is disposed on the open side of the air outlet (Fig. 3) and is configured to guide air upward or downward by rotating up and down (Fig. 3 -the first wing 4 is configured to guide air upward and downward by rotating up and down about element 40b);
a second wing (5, Fig. 2) that is disposed at a rear side of the first wing (Fig. 2) and is configured to guide air to the left or right by rotating left or right (Fig. 5 – the second wing is configured to guide air to the left or right by rotating left or right about element 812); and
a knob (60, Fig. 5) that is movable (Fig. 4/6) and is configured to interlock with the first wing or the second wing depending on disposition thereof (Fig. 3/5 – the knob 60 is configured to interlock with the first wing via element 80 and the second wing via element 81),
wherein the knob is disposed outside the air outlet (Fig. 3 – the knob 60 is disposed outside the air outlet 21).
However, Shibata lacks showing the knob is movable forward and backward.
Munoz (US 2024/0017596), an air vent for a vehicle, is in the same field of endeavor as Shibata which is an air vent for a vehicle.
Munoz teaches the knob is movable forward and backward (¶0030 – the knob 30 has a push and a pull movement, or a forward and backwards movement).
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 Knob of Shibata to incorporate the teachings of the knob of Munoz, which would provide an alternate adjustment mechanism that has a third direction of movement while still maintaining a slim profile (¶0001, Lines 11-15).
Regarding claim 2, Shibata shows wherein a rotating shaft (72, Fig. 3) is formed to extend on a rear surface of the knob (Fig. 3), a first gear (80, Fig. 3) and a second gear (81, Fig. 5) are formed on the rotating shaft at a predetermined interval (Fig. 2/4/6 – the predetermined interval is represented in the offset nature of the connection, that is of a certain interval, each in their own relation to the radial direction of the rotating shaft 72) in a radial direction of the rotating shaft (Fig. 2/4/6), and the first gear is configured to interlock with the first wing (Fig. 3) and the second gear is configured to interlock with the second wing (Fig. 5) so that when the knob is rotated, the first wing or the second wing is moved (Fig. 4/6).
Regarding claim 3, Shibata shows further comprising: a protrusion that protrudes from a side surface of the first wing and has a bent end (Fig. 3 – the first wing 4 comprises of a bent end comprising of elements 802/803, of which connect to element 40a of the first wing 4); and
a first cam (804, Fig. 4 – The Oxford English Dictionary defines Cam: “A projecting part of a wheel or other revolving piece of machinery, adapted to impart an alternating or variable motion of any kind to another piece pressing against it, by sliding or rolling contact.”; the Examiner is taking the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand that element 804 is a cam that is adapted to impart an alternating or variable motion of any kind to another piece pressing against it by sliding contact) that is disposed parallel to the air outlet at a rear side of the knob (Fig. 3 – when in place, the first cam 804, which moves downward to transfer force, is disposed parallel to the direction of airflow of the air outlet, at a rear side of the knob) and has a through hole (805, Fig. 3) formed so that the end of the protrusion passes therethrough (Fig. 4),
wherein the protrusion is disposed at a predetermined interval from a rotating shaft of the first wing (40a, Fig. 4) so that when the first cam rotates, the protrusion moves up and down to allow the first wing to rotate (Fig. 3/4 – for the first wing 4 to function as stationary slats that rotate in place, the first cam 805 rotates forward and backwards when moving up and down, as it is the element which itself rotates to the up and down position, to allow the first wing 4 to rotate while also being stationary in the grooves 32).
Regarding claim 4, Shibata shows further comprising: a link portion (812, Fig. 5) that is connected to one side of the second wing and has a bent end (Fig. 5 – the link portion 812 is connected to one side of the second wing 5 and has a bent end that goes into a through hole 816); and
a second cam (814, Fig. 5) that is disposed parallel to the air outlet at a rear side of the knob (Fig. 5/6, when in place, the second cam 814, which moves forward and backwards to transfer force, is disposed parallel to the air flow of the air outlet) and has a through hole (816, Fig. 5) formed so that the end of the link portion passes therethrough (Fig. 6), wherein when the second cam rotates, the link portion hung on the second cam moves left and right to allow the second wing to rotate left and right (Fig. 5/6 – for the second wing 5 to function as stationary slats that rotate in place, the second cam rotates forward and backwards when moving left and right, as it is the element which itself rotates to the left and right position, to allow the second wing 5 to rotate while also being stationary in the holes 33).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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 and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art of record is Shibata (US 2004/0203334), and while this reference does disclose the first cam and the second cam in its manner, however this reference does not disclose the structure required to meet the bar for the claimed limitations of having gear protrusions that are formed on facing surfaces of the first cam and the second cam, and additionally, when the knob is moved forward and backward, the first gear or the second gear is configured to interlock with the gear protrusion formed on the first cam or the second cam. The Examiner finds no reasonable rationale that would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shibata as doing so would employ hindsight reasoning and compromise the mechanical continuity of Shibata by structurally modifying out of its best mode use, while also teaching away from the requirement for the outside of the cam to be engaged in such a mechanically meaningful way.
Claims 6-10 depend from claim 5.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References Cited.
The following prior art teaches related air registers:
US 12,109,871
US 20230356570
US 20160288624
US 6863603
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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 at 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights