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 .
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: “wind direction control member,” “inlet side control portion,” “outlet side control portion,” and “drive member” used throughout the claims.
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.
For the record:
“Wind direction control member,” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure described in the specification as correlating with reference numeral 20, and equivalents thereof.
“Inlet side control portion,” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure described in the specification as correlating with reference numeral 200, and equivalents thereof.
“Outlet side control portion,” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure described in the specification as correlating with reference numeral 210, and equivalents thereof.
“Drive member” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure described in the specification as correlating with reference numerals 30, 60, and 90, 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.
Note further that while “skin portion” is an unusual term, it has been interpreted in light of the disclosure according to corresponding structure associated with reference numeral 120 as described.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 does not have a period at the end of the claim, rendering the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether further limitations are intended for the claim. Claims 2-15 are also rejected since they depend from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the front ends" in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim only previously referred to a singular “front end.” Claims 3-15 are also rejected since they depend from claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (JPH06159784).
As per claim 1, Tanaka discloses an apparatus for discharging air, the apparatus comprising: a duct 5 having a path (21, 23) thereinside through which air flows in forward and backward directions, and having an inlet 11 formed at a rear end thereof and an outlet 13 formed at a front end thereof; and a wind direction control member 7 positioned inside the duct, and having at least a partial area provided to be movable in a vertical direction so as to control a direction of air discharged through the outlet (Figs. 2A & 2B; Figs. 4A & 4B; etc.). Note for the record that while the system of Tanaka is designed for air to flow in the forward direction, the limitation “through which air flows in forward and backward directions” is considered functional language. Since air is capable of flowing backward within the apparatus of Tanaka (e.g., simply according to air currents when an associated fan is not blowing), the apparatus is considered to read on this limitation. (Note further that Applicant’s own invention is similarly designed for airflow to travel a forward direction from the inlet to the outlet, so is also interpreted according to simply being capable of having air flowing in a backward direction.)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-8, 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JPH06159784) in view of Freese et al. (US 2016/0361977 A1).
As per claim 2, Tanaka discloses wherein the duct includes: passage portions (21, 23) having a preset length in the forward and backward directions and provided to face each other at a preset distance apart in the vertical direction (Figs. 2A & 2B; Figs. 4A & 4B; etc.), thereby forming a path through which the air flows; Tanaka does not teach skin portions positioned in a front end area of the duct in the forward and backward directions, having a preset length in the forward and backward directions, having areas facing each other at a preset distance apart in the vertical direction, thereby forming the outlet between the front ends, in which the areas facing each other are provided with skin surfaces protruding in a facing direction. Freese et al. teach an apparatus for discharging air comprising “skin portions” positioned in a front end area of the duct in the forward and backward directions (see for example converging portions at pathway sections 22 at the front end), having a preset length in the forward and backward directions (dimensions are fixed), having areas facing each other at a preset distance apart in the vertical direction (distance between the portions are fixed), thereby forming the outlet between the front ends (Figs. 3-5; etc.), in which the areas facing each other are provided with skin surfaces protruding in a facing direction (Figs. 3-5; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide “skin portions” within the apparatus of Tanaka for the purpose of concentrating and directing the discharged airflow (note how the casing of Tanaka already converges inward at the outlet; the use of “skin portions” being simply a structural alternative for such convergence).
As per claim 3, Tanaka discloses the walls of the duct converging toward the outlet (Figs. 2A & 2B; Figs. 4A & 4B; etc.), although do not teach wherein the skin surfaces are gradually inclined in the facing direction as extending forward. Freese et al. teach wherein the skin surfaces are gradually inclined in the facing direction as extending forward (Figs. 3-5; etc.). Again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide such arranged “skin portions” within the apparatus of Tanaka for the purpose of concentrating and directing the discharged airflow.
As per claim 4, Tanaka discloses the walls having an inclination angle (Figs. 2A & 2B; Figs. 4A & 4B; etc.), although do not teach wherein the skin surfaces are inclined by a skin inclination angle in the forward and backward directions. Freese et al. teach wherein the skin surfaces are inclined by a skin inclination angle in the forward and backward directions (Figs. 3-5; etc.). Again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide such arranged “skin portions” within the apparatus of Tanaka for the purpose of concentrating and directing the discharged airflow.
As per claim 5, Tanaka discloses wherein the wind direction control member includes an inlet-side control portion (rear end portion 703, 3703) positioned in a rear area of the wind direction control member, having a front end provided with a support shaft 49 having a length extending in a lateral direction, and rotatable in the vertical direction about the support shaft as an axis (Figs. 2A & 2B; Figs. 4A & 4B; etc.).
As per claim 6, Tanaka discloses wherein the wind direction control member further includes an outlet-side control portion (7, 47) positioned in a front area of the wind direction control member and fixed inside the duct (Figs. 2A & 2B; Figs. 4A & 4B; etc.).
As per claim 7, Tanaka discloses portion 7, 47 being positioned between the converging outlet walls, but does not teach wherein the outlet-side control portion has at least a partial area positioned between the skin portions. Freese et al. teach the outlet walls having skin portions as already discussed (see claim 2; etc.). In performing the modification of claim 2, portions 7, 47 would naturally be positioned between the skin portions. Further, such positioning would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the already existing purpose of directing airflow toward the outlet.
As per claim 8, Tanaka discloses wherein the outlet-side control portion 7, 47 is positioned in a central area in the vertical direction in an internal space of the duct (Figs. 2A & 2B; Figs. 4A & 4B; etc.).
As per claim 11, Tanaka disclose wherein the wind direction control member includes: an inlet-side control portion 3703 positioned in a rear area of the wind direction control member based on a rotation shaft 49 provided in a lateral direction; and an outlet-side control portion 3701positioned in a front area of the wind direction control member based on the rotation shaft.
As per claim 12, Tanaka discloses wherein the wind direction control member is formed in a central area in the vertical direction thereof (Figs. 2A & 2B; Figs. 4A & 4B; etc.), but does not teach a flow hole formed through in the forward and backward directions. Freese et al. teach a flow hole (flow duct 44) formed through in the forward and backward directions of the wind direction control member (Fig. 4; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide a flow hole within the wind direction member of Tanaka for the purpose of further directing air flow from the inlet to the outlet as desired.
As per claim 14, Tanaka discloses wherein the wind direction control member is provided to be movable in the vertical direction (Figs. 2A & 2B; Figs. 4A & 4B; etc.).
Claim(s) 9-10, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JPH06159784) in view of Freese et al. (US 2016/0361977 A1), and further in view of Kim (KR20030025411A).
As per claim 9, Tanaka does not teach the assembly further comprising: a drive cam connected to a connection shaft coupled to the inlet-side control portion to provide a power for rotating the inlet-side control portion. Kim teaches an air flow assembly wherein an airflow control portion 66 is controlled by a drive cam 68c through a connection shaft 68s. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply the drive arrangement of Kim to the air flow assembly of Tanaka for the similar purpose of effectively driving to positioning of the wind direction control member.
As per claim 10, Tanaka as modified by Freese et al. and Kim does not teach wherein the drive cam is provided as a sphere. However, such is considered a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application as an alternative drive arrangement to the motor/cam arrangement of Kim. More particularly, one of ordinary skill in the art could easily replace the motor drive of Kim with a manually driven cam, the replacement of an automatic arrangement with a manual arrangement in itself not being patently significant. Further, official notice is taken that the use of spherical knobs for manual operation of a drive shaft is generally known in the art. Accordingly, again, replacing the motor arrangement of Kim with such a manually driven spherical cam arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of allowing for manual operation of the wind direction control member.
As per claim 13, Tanaka does not disclose the assembly further comprising a drive member connected to the rotation shaft to provide a power for rotating the rotation shaft. Kim further teaches the drive arrangement comprising a drive member (motor 68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to provide a drive motor as part of the drive assembly of Tanaka as modified by Kim for the purpose of providing the force necessary to move the wind direction control member as desired.
As per claim 15, Tanaka does not disclose the assembly further comprising: a drive cam to which a connection shaft, which has an outer end coupled to a side surface of the wind direction control member in a lateral direction and extends outward in the lateral direction, is inserted and connected, thereby providing a power for vertically moving the wind direction control member. Kim teaches a drive cam 68c to which a connection shaft 67, which has an outer end coupled to a wind direction control member 66 in a lateral direction and extends outward in the lateral direction, is inserted and connected (Figs. 4-5; etc.). t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide such a drive arrangement coupled to a side surface of the wind direction member of Tanaka for the same purpose of providing the drive controls to move the wind direction control member as desired.
Cited Prior Art
The following references not applied in the rejections above are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Jovick et al. (US 11280517 B1) teach an air flow control arrangement (see Figs. 3B, 3E, 3G, 3I; etc.).
Uhlenbusch et al. (US 2019/0126726 A1) teach an air vent with a device for controlling air flow.
Londiche et al. (US 2014/0357179 A1) teach a cam-based air flow control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763