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 1-25 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 06/04/2024, 02/21/2025 & 02/27/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
A) The term “bridges” in Claim 9 renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what is meant in this context and no further explanation or clarification in the specifications. For the purposes of examination, “bridges” has been construed to be that the respective doors partially surround the respective shaft.
B) Claims 10-12 are also rejected due to their dependency on Claim 9.
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) 1-11 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Number 5,647,399 to Andersen.
A) As per Claim 1, Andersen teaches an air mixing damper system (Andersen: Figure 1), comprising:
a first rotatable door (Andersen: Figure 1, Item 1) that rotates about a first shaft that extends along a first axis;
a second rotatable door (Andersen: Figure 1, Item 2) that rotates about a second shaft, the second shaft disposed along a second axis, the second axis is collinear with the first axis;
the first door is rotatable about the first axis and the second door is rotatable about the second axis;
a first actuator (Andersen: Figure 1, Item 40) operatively engaged with the first shaft;
a second actuator (Andersen: Figure 1, Item 50) operatively engaged with the second shaft, wherein the first and second doors are each capable of rotating independently of the other of the first and second doors (Andersen: Col. 4, lines 47-57).
B) As per Claim 2, Andersen teaches that the first actuator and the second actuator each operate such that the respective first and second doors can independently be moved between an open configuration and a closed configuration and can each be independently maintained in the closed and open positions (Andersen: Col. 4, lines 47-57).
C) As per Claim 3, Andersen teaches that the first actuator operates such that the first door can be positioned in a plurality of intermediate positions between the open configuration and closed configuration (Andersen: Col. 4, lines 47-57, goes through many positions to get from open to closed).
D) As per Claim 4, Andersen teaches that the second actuator operates such that the second door can be positioned in a plurality of intermediate positions between the open configuration and the closed configuration (Andersen: Col. 4, lines 47-57, goes through many positions to get from open to closed).
E) As per Claim 5, Andersen teaches that the first actuator provides torque along a third axis (Andersen: Figure 1, axis B) that is parallel the first axis but is offset from the first axis, and the second actuator provides torque along the second axis (Andersen: Figure 1, axis A).
F) As per Claim 6, Andersen teaches an input gear that is constrained with the first actuator and an output gear, wherein the input gear rotates about the third axis and the output gear is meshed with the input gear and rotates about the first axis (Andersen: Figure 1, Items 41-42).
G) As per Claim 7, Andersen teaches an inner shaft that extends coaxially within the first and second shafts, wherein the inner shaft receives torque from the second actuator and transfers torque to the second shaft (Andersen: Figures 1-2, Item 47 to 30).
H) As per Claim 8, Andersen teaches that the first and second shafts are arranged adjacent to each other, wherein first door extends radially from the first shaft and the second door extends radially from the second shaft (Andersen: best shown in Figure 1, all components in Figure 1 are adjacent to all other components in Figure 1).
I) As per Claim 9, Andersen teaches that the first door bridges outside of and across the second shaft, and wherein the second door bridges outside of and across first shaft (Andersen: Figure 1, Items 1 & 2 extend around shafts as construed by 112(b) above).
J) As per Claim 10, Andersen teaches that the first and second shafts are arranged like opposing cylindrical portions of a conventional door hinge, further comprising an inner shaft that extends coaxially within the first and second shaft, wherein the inner shaft is arranged like a pin of the conventional door hinge (Andersen: Figure 1, two cylindrical portions of door hinge with pin 30 going through the middle of both.
K) As per Claim 11, Andersen teaches that the inner shaft receives torque from the second actuator and transfers torque to the second shaft (Anderson: Figure 1, Item 47).
L) As per Claim 13, Andersen teaches that the first door is fixed to the first shaft and the second door is fixed to the second shaft (Andersen: Col. 4, lines 47-57).
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen in view of US Patent Number 10,279,652 B2 to Wagnitz.
A) As per Claim 12, Andersen teaches all the limitations except explicitly that the inner shaft includes a plurality of radially extending lobes along a portion of a length of the inner shaft, wherein the second shaft includes a plurality of cutouts that each received a lobe of the plurality of radially extending lobes therein to transfer torque from the inner shaft to the second shaft.
However, Wagnitz teaches the inner shaft includes a plurality of radially extending lobes along a portion of a length of the inner shaft, wherein the second shaft includes a plurality of cutouts that each received a lobe of the plurality of radially extending lobes therein to transfer torque from the inner shaft to the second shaft (Wagnitz: best shown in Figure 5).
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 Andersen by having the shaft attachment portion, as taught by Wagnitz, 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 Andersen with these aforementioned teachings of Wagnitz with the motivation of keying the shafts such that rotate as needed based on their respective actuators.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen in view of US Patent Number 7,954,540 B2 to Hoehn.
A) As per Claim 14, Andersen teaches all the limitations except that one or both of the first and second doors have one or more longitudinal ribs that extend from a planar face of the respective door.
However, Hoehn teaches one or both of the first and second doors have one or more longitudinal ribs that extend from a planar face of the respective door (Hoehn: Figure 7A, Items 48 at different angles).
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 Andersen by adding ribs to the doors, as taught by Hoehn, 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 Andersen with these aforementioned teachings of Hoehn with the motivation of strengthening the door.
B) As per Claim 15, Andersen in view of Hoehn teaches that the one or more longitudinal ribs are a plurality of ribs that extend an acute angle from a line that extends perpendicular to the first axis (Hoehn: Figure 7A, Items 48 at different angles).
C) As per Claim 16, Andersen in view of Hoehn teaches each of the plurality of ribs within one of the first or second doors extend at different acute angles from each of the other ribs upon the same of the first or second door (Hoehn: Figure 7A, Items 48 at different angles).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen in view of US Patent Number 10,507,712 B2 to Nolta.
A) As per Claim 17, Andersen teaches all the limitations except explicitly that outer perimeter edge of both of the first and second doors includes an elastomeric material in positions where contact is made between the respective perimeter edge of the door and fixed surfaces within a housing the rotatably receives the door.
However, Nolta teaches an outer perimeter edge of both of the first and second doors includes an elastomeric material in positions where contact is made between the respective perimeter edge of the door and fixed surfaces within a housing the rotatably receives the door (Nolta: Figures 2 & 8-9, Items 40).
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 Andersen by adding an elastic seal, as taught by Nolta, 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 Andersen with these aforementioned teachings of Nolta with the motivation of preventing airflow leaking around the doors.
Claim(s) 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen in view of US Patent Number 6,019,163 to Saida.
A) As per Claim 18, Andersen teaches an air circulation assembly, comprising the air mixing damper system of claim 1.
Andersen does not explicitly teach the first and second actuators and the first and second shafts are supported by a housing, wherein the housing is configured to be connected to a source of relatively cold air and a source of relatively hot air, wherein the housing establishes a mixing space therein, and the housing is further configured to be connected to selectively and independently allow air flow from the mixing space to a plurality of air outlets within a vehicle, and further comprising a controller, wherein the controller causes operation of the first actuator to cause the first door to be positioned with respect to the source of relatively hot air to selectively allow or prevent a flow of relatively hot air from the source of relatively hot air into the mixing space, and the controller causes operation of the second actuator to cause the second door to be positioned with respect to the source of relatively cold air to selectively allow or prevent a flow of relatively cold air from the source of relatively cold air to the mixing space.
However, Saida teaches first and second actuators and the first and second shafts are supported by a housing (Saida: Figure 6, Item 7), wherein the housing is configured to be connected to a source of relatively cold air (Saida: Figure 6, Item 8) and a source of relatively hot air (Saida: Figure 6, Item 9), wherein the housing establishes a mixing space therein, and the housing is further configured to be connected to selectively and independently allow air flow from the mixing space to a plurality of air outlets within a vehicle, and further comprising a controller, wherein the controller causes operation of the first actuator to cause the first door to be positioned with respect to the source of relatively hot air to selectively allow or prevent a flow of relatively hot air from the source of relatively hot air into the mixing space, and the controller causes operation of the second actuator to cause the second door to be positioned with respect to the source of relatively cold air to selectively allow or prevent a flow of relatively cold air from the source of relatively cold air to the mixing space (Saida: Figure 3, Items a & b).
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 Andersen by having the duct organization, as taught by Saida, 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 Andersen with these aforementioned teachings of Saida with the motivation of being able to send airflow into the cabin to different zones based on occupant preference.
B) As per Claim 19, Andersen in view of Saida teaches that the controller is configured to operate the first actuator to cause the first door to be positioned with respect to the source of relatively hot air to a throttled position to allow an amount of relatively hot air into the mixing space that is less than an amount of relatively hot air that could flow to the mixing space if the first door was in a fully opened configuration, and the controller is configured to operate the second actuator to cause the second door to be positioned with respect to the source of relatively cold air to a throttled position to allow an amount of relatively cold air into the mixing space that is less than amount of relatively cold air that could flow to the mixing space if the second door was in a fully opened configuration (Saida: Figure 3, Items a & b).
C) As per Claim 20, Andersen in view of Saida teaches that the housing comprises a plurality of auxiliary valves that are independently operated by the controller, wherein each auxiliary valve when in an open position allows air flow from the mixing space to a specific air outlet within the vehicle that is associated with the auxiliary valve, wherein each auxiliary valve is operated by the controller between an open position and a closed position (Saida: Figure 3, Item 26).
D) As per Claim 21, Andersen in view of Saida teaches that each of the plurality of auxiliary valves are positioned in either the open position or in a closed position that prevents air flow from the mixing space to the specific air outlet within the vehicle that is associated with the auxiliary valve (Saida: Figure 3, Item 26).
E) As per Claim 22, Andersen in view of Saida teaches that the specific air outlets within the vehicle includes a front windshield defrost system, a side window defrost system, a vent panel air flow system, and a front row floor ventilation system (Saida: Figure 3, Item 23-25).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen in view of Saida as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2004/0069483 A1 to Natsume.
A) As per Claim 23, Andersen in view of Saida teaches all the limitations except that the housing includes a flow path that selectively allows or prevents air flow from the source of relatively hot air and from the source of relatively cold air to flow to a remote environment within a vehicle, wherein the air that flows into the flow path to the remote environment does not interact with the first and second doors.
However, Natsume teaches the housing includes a flow path that selectively allows or prevents air flow from the source of relatively hot air and from the source of relatively cold air to flow to a remote environment within a vehicle, wherein the air that flows into the flow path to the remote environment does not interact with the first and second doors (Natsume: Figure 1, Item 30).
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 Andersen in view of Saida by adding a bypass flow path, as taught by Natsume, 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 Andersen in view of Saida with these aforementioned teachings of Natsume with the motivation of sending airflow to the rear seats in addition to the driver and passenger.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen in view of Saida as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2018/0345752 A1 to Nolta.
A) As per Claim 25, Andersen in view of Saida teaches all the limitations except that the housing further comprises a first mechanical stop that is disposed proximate to the first actuator, wherein the first mechanical stop is positioned to directly limit a range of rotation of a first component that directly receives torque from the first actuator; and the housing further comprises a second mechanical stop that is disposed proximate to the second actuator, wherein the second mechanical stop is positioned to interact with a leg that extends radially from a fourth shaft that directly receives torque from the second actuator and is rotatably fixed to the second shaft.
However, Nolta teaches a mechanical stop that is disposed proximate to the first actuator, wherein the first mechanical stop is positioned to directly limit a range of rotation of a first component that directly receives torque from the first actuator (Nolta: Figures 2-3, Item 32; Paragraph 0025) such that when applied to both actuators in Andersen have a first and second mechanical stop.
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 Andersen in view of Saida by adding mechanical stops to the actuators, as taught by Nolta, 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 Andersen in view of Saida with these aforementioned teachings of Nolta with the motivation of preventing over rotation of the doors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: One of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to add a second whole damper system as the damper system of Andersen already controls for passenger and driver side temperature differences.
Conclusion
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