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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 connection mechanism” in claim 17. The specification provides further structure for the limitation as an “elastic membrane” (See ¶ [0031] of Applicant’s 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.
Claim(s) 9, 11-14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eltrop (US 20170158029 A1) in view of Hofhaus (EP 1818198 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Eltrop teaches of:
An air vent (Fig. 1), comprising:
a housing (25); and
an air duct formed in the housing between a first wall (11+13 and the third unmapped slat connected to 13 make up the first wall) and a second wall spaced apart from the first wall (12+14 and the third unmapped slat connected to 14 make up the second wall), the first wall and the second wall being designed to change shape (see shape change between Fig. 1 and Fig. 2), wherein the first wall, at an air duct outlet side, has a first section mounted pivotably with respect to the housing (11), a second section whose downstream end is mounted pivotably on the first section (13), and a third section which is pivotably mounted downstream on the upstream end of the second section and upstream at an air duct inlet side (see third slat of third section attached to the upstream side of 13), the second wall, at the air duct outlet side, has a fourth section mounted pivotably with respect to the housing (12), a fifth section whose downstream end is mounted pivotably on the fourth section (14), and a sixth section which is pivotably mounted downstream on the upstream end of the fifth section and upstream at the air duct inlet side (see sixth slat of the sixth section attached to the upstream side of 14),
the first section, the third section, the fourth section and the sixth section are in each case formed as a single slat (11, 12 and the third and sixth sections as described above are each a single slat)
Eltrop fails to explicitly teach:
the second section and the fifth section are in each case formed of a plurality of slats
Hofhaus teaches of:
the second section and the fifth section are in each case formed of a plurality of slats (see combination made below, Fig. 7 of Hofhaus teaches of forming a wall at the outlet of a duct from a plurality of slats, in Fig. 7 there are 8, where the single slats at both ends of the wall are the first/fourth section and the third/sixth section and the 6 slats between are the second/fifth section of the wall)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
increase the number of slats in the second and fifth sections of Eltrop to be at least two and so that the plurality of slats in the second and fifth section are pivotably connected to one another
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would increase the smoothness of the curvature of the first and second walls, reducing noise produced by the vent and decreasing turbulence (Hofhaus, ¶ [0004] and [0010])
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach of the air vent according to claim 9, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the first section, the slats of the second section, and the third section are connected to one another, at least in their respectively adjacent regions, by at least one first elastic connecting mechanism, and/or the fourth section, the slats of the fifth section, and the sixth section are connected to one another, at least in their respectively adjacent regions, by at least one second elastic connecting mechanism.
Hofhaus teaches of:
connecting adjacent slats of duct walls with an elastic connection mechanism (Fig. 7, see slats 8 and 9 connected by an elastic film; ¶ [0021], “The lamellar elements 8, 9 can be connected to each other, for example, by a film hinge, similar to the segments of blind covers, as are known from storage compartment covers in the passenger compartment of vehicles”)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
Modify the first wall and second wall of Eltrop with the system shown in Fig. 7 of Hofhaus so that each of the adjacent sections are injection molded around an elastic membrane that connects each of the adjacent connections
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
It would prevent detachment of the adjacent slats when pivoting, reducing noise and turbulence (Hofhaus, ¶ [0004], “The air guide elements should therefore be approached as tangentially as possible to their respective "profile chord". The air flowing from the air outlet grill into the passenger compartment should also flow as tangentially as possible to the profile chords of the air guide elements. Flow noise is minimized when the air guide elements are free of detachment. Since the entire outlet cross-section of the air outlet grill can be used when the air guide elements are tangentially oriented, the airflow velocity is lower, which reduces the "draft sensation" in the passenger compartment.”)
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach of the air vent according to claim 11, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the first connecting mechanism and/or the second connecting mechanism is designed as a membrane, on which at least one of the slats is injected (Hofhaus, ¶ [0021], “The air guide element of Figure 7 can be manufactured using a two-component injection molding process”)
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach of the air vent according to claim 9, and the combined teachings further teach of:
wherein respective outer sides of two adjacent slats are convex to each other (Eltrop as modified, see convex surfaces of the adjacent slats at the pivot points between the slats)
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach of the air vent according to claim 9, and the combined teachings further teach of:
wherein the first section has a first pivot axis downstream (the downstream end of 11 has a first pivot axis), and/or the fourth section has a second pivot axis downstream (the downstream end of 12 has a second pivot axis).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach of:
A passenger vehicle comprising at least one air vent according to claim 9 (Eltrop, ¶ [0007], “In particular, an air outlet device according to the invention for feeding air to a vehicle interior, i.e. a passenger compartment, of a motor vehicle”)
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach of the air vent according to claim 9, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the first section, the slats of the second section, and the third section are connected to one another by a first elastic connecting mechanism, and/or the fourth section, the slats of the fifth section, and the sixth section are connected to one another by a second elastic connecting mechanism.
Hofhaus teaches of:
Hofhaus teaches of:
connecting adjacent slats of duct walls with an elastic connection mechanism (Fig. 7, see slats 8 and 9 connected by an elastic film; ¶ [0021], “The lamellar elements 8, 9 can be connected to each other, for example, by a film hinge, similar to the segments of blind covers, as are known from storage compartment covers in the passenger compartment of vehicles”)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
Modify the first wall and second wall of Eltrop with the system shown in Fig. 7 of Hofhaus so that each of the adjacent sections are injection molded around an elastic membrane that connects each of the adjacent connections
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
It would prevent detachment of the adjacent slats when pivoting, reducing noise and turbulence (Hofhaus, ¶ [0004], “The air guide elements should therefore be approached as tangentially as possible to their respective "profile chord". The air flowing from the air outlet grill into the passenger compartment should also flow as tangentially as possible to the profile chords of the air guide elements. Flow noise is minimized when the air guide elements are free of detachment. Since the entire outlet cross-section of the air outlet grill can be used when the air guide elements are tangentially oriented, the airflow velocity is lower, which reduces the "draft sensation" in the passenger compartment.”)
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach of the air vent according to claim 17, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the first connecting mechanism is designed as a membrane on which the slats of the second section are injected, and/or the second connecting mechanism is designed as a membrane on which the slats of the fifth section are injected (see combination made with Hofhaus in the rejection of claim 17, all adjacent slats in each section of each wall are formed by injection molding around an elastic membrane)
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach of the air vent according to claim 17, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the first connecting mechanism is designed as a membrane on which the first section, the slats of the second section, and the third section are injected, and/or the second connecting mechanism is designed as a membrane on which the fourth section, the slats of the fifth section, and the sixth section are injected (see combination made with Hofhaus in the rejection of claim 17, all adjacent slats in each section of each wall are formed by injection molding around an elastic membrane)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eltrop (US 20170158029 A1) in view of Hofhaus (EP 1818198 A1) and in further view of Mayer (DE 102016122142 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach of the air vent according to claim 9, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the third section, at the air duct inlet side, is mounted movably in translation in a first receptacle, and/or the sixth section, at the air duct inlet side, is mounted movably in translation in a second receptacle,
wherein the first receptacle or second receptacle is mounted pivotably, at the air duct inlet side, with respect to the housing.
Mayer teaches of:
wherein the third section (Fig. 1a, 24), at the air duct inlet side, is mounted movably in translation in a first receptacle (24 is mounted movably in translation in 22), and/or the sixth section, at the air duct inlet side, is mounted movably in translation in a second receptacle (Fig. 1a, the same features for the third section and the first receptacle are shown on the opposite side of the air vent),
wherein the first receptacle or second receptacle is mounted pivotably, at the air duct inlet side, with respect to the housing (22 is pivotably mounted with respect to the housing 12).
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
replace the third and sixth sections of Eltrop with 22 and 24 of Mayer
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
It would account for the translation and rotation of the third and sixth sections when changing shape that is shown to occur in the transition between Figs. 1 and 2 of Eltrop without having to make holes in the vent housing, reducing air leakage (Mayer, ¶ [0009], “wherein the length compensation element can be inserted into and removed from a receptacle of one of the two louver parts. This makes it possible to do without cam guides, i.e. elongated guide openings for a rear louver section in the housing. Therefore, no leakage air currents occur at the air outlet.”)
Claim(s) 9 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingler (DE 19943822 A1) in view of Hofhaus (EP 1818198 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Klingler teaches of:
An air vent (Fig. 1), comprising:
a housing (1); and
an air duct formed in the housing between a first wall (6a-c) and a second wall spaced apart from the first wall (7a-7c), the first wall and the second wall being designed to change shape (see transition between shapes from Figs. 1-5), wherein the first wall, at an air duct outlet side, has a first section mounted pivotably with respect to the housing (6c pivots about 5), a second section whose downstream end is mounted pivotably on the first section (6b), and a third section which is pivotably mounted downstream on the upstream end of the second section and upstream at an air duct inlet side (6a), the second wall, at the air duct outlet side, has a fourth section mounted pivotably with respect to the housing (7c pivots about 5), a fifth section whose downstream end is mounted pivotably on the fourth section (7b), and a sixth section which is pivotably mounted downstream on the upstream end of the fifth section and upstream at the air duct inlet side (7a),
the first section, the third section, the fourth section and the sixth section are in each case formed as a single slat (6a, 6c, 7a and 7b are all one slat)
Klingler fails to explicitly teach:
the second section and the fifth section are in each case formed of a plurality of slats
Hofhaus teaches of:
the second section and the fifth section are in each case formed of a plurality of slats (see combination made below, Fig. 7 of Hofhaus teaches of forming a wall at the outlet of a duct from a plurality of slats, in Fig. 7 there are 8, where the single slats at both ends of the wall are the first/fourth section and the third/sixth section and the 6 slats between are the second/fifth section of the wall)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
increase the number of slats in the second and fifth sections of Klingler to be at least two and so that 6b and 7b of Klingler are split into two slats connected to 8 and 9 respectively
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would increase the smoothness of the curvature of the first and second walls, reducing noise produced by the vent and decreasing turbulence (Hofhaus, ¶ [0004] and [0010])
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach of the air vent according to claim 9, and the combined teachings further teach of:
Wherein the first section and the fourth section have a common pivot axis positioned between them (Klingler as modified, the point equidistant between 5 of 6a and 5 of 7b is the common pivot axis between the first and fourth sections)
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach of:
A passenger vehicle comprising at least one air vent according to claim 9 (Klingler, ¶ [0014], “Figures 1 and 2 initially show the outlet area of a so-called outlet grill, as it is provided at the end of air ducts of ventilation or air conditioning systems of motor vehicles in the area of the dashboard or at other locations”)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J GIORDANO whose telephone number is (571)272-8940. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fr 8 AM - 5 PM EST.
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.
/MICHAEL JAMES GIORDANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights