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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/28/2020 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because numerous reference characters have been reused for similar elements which have similar function but different attachment points and function: For example: “30” has been used to designate both 2nd pivot joint elements on the first and second connecting members even though these are different pivot joints which are attached to different elements. Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the figures and disclosure to correct such unclear duplication of reference numbers for similar elements. 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. 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.
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 “vehicle” (Claim 1) and “wherein each of the first connecting member and the second connecting member is connected to the frame member by a respective second pivot joint” (Claim 1 – not shown and similarly “connected to the frame” in Claim 14 not shown), and “opposite edge regions” (Claim 2) “an edge region” (Claim 5/7) and “wherein at least one of the first connecting member and second connecting member connected to the first flap is coupled to one of the further first connecting member or further second connecting member connected to the second flap, so that a rotation of the coupled one of the first connecting member and second connecting member results in a rotation of the respectively coupled further first connecting member or further second connecting member (Claim 15 – not all options shown) and “wherein the coupling between the respective one of the first connecting member or second connecting member and the further first connecting member or further second connecting member” (Claim 16 – not all options show) must be shown and labeled 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “is connected” (lines 6 & 7) should most likely be rewritten as: “are connected.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the first and the second connecting member” (line 9) should most likely be rewritten as: “the first connecting member and the second connecting member” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “25°” should be rewritten out as: “25 degrees.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the open-ended limitations: “at least" (line 2, 3, 4, 11) which is unclear in each instance and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation: “an opened state in which the first flap does not cover the opening or covers a smaller part thereof compared to the closed state" (line 13-14) which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5-7, and 12-13 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claims 5-7 and 12-13, the claims recite the open-ended limitations: “at least one" which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9-10 are is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 9 includes limitations linked by the phrase "and/or." This renders the claims indefinite, as it is unclear if the combination of limitations is required or optional. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8 and 11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claims 8/11, the claims recite the limitation: "substantially", which is unclear and which renders the claims indefinite, since the term is a relative term. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since no tolerances have been defined by the specification or claims, it's impossible to determine what range has been actually claimed, thus rendering the scope of the claim(s) not clearly defined. Appropriate correction is required..
Claim 13 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation: "the second flap" (line 2), which is of unclear antecedent basis and therefore renders the claims indefinite. The ”second flap” is not provided until Claim 14. For purposes of prosecution herein, Claim 13 will be understood to depend from Claim 14. However, appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 15/16, the claims recites the limitation: “wherein at least one of the first connecting member and second connecting member connected to the first flap is coupled to one of the further first connecting member or further second connecting member connected to the second flap, so that a rotation of the coupled one of the first connecting member and second connecting member results in a rotation of the respectively coupled further first connecting member or further second connecting member" (Claim 15) and “wherein the coupling between the respective one of the first connecting member or second connecting member and the further first connecting member or further second connecting member (Claim 16) which are unclear (emphasis added) due to optional claiming style and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation: "the coupling" (line 1), which is of unclear antecedent basis and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bayerische (DE 102014226027 A1 – Applicant provided prior art translation provided at original filing).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Bayerische discloses: An aero shutter for a vehicle (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 1), comprising:
a frame member (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 13+11) having at least one opening through which air can flow (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 3);
at least a first flap (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 5); and
at least a first connecting member (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 7) and a second connecting member (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 9), wherein each of the first connecting member and the second connecting member is connected to the first flap by a respective first pivot joint (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 72+92) and wherein each of the first connecting member and the second connecting member is connected to the frame member by a respective second pivot joint (See, e.g., Fig.1-5, 71+91), and wherein the first and the second connecting member are rotatable about their respective first and second pivot joints so as to move the first flap between a closed state in which the first flap covers at least part of the opening (See, e.g., Fig.1-5) and an opened state in which the first flap does not cover the opening or covers a smaller part thereof compared to the closed state (See, e.g., Fig.1-5).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Bayerische discloses: wherein the first pivot joints are positioned at opposite edge regions of the first flap (See, e.g., Fig.1-5).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, Bayerische discloses: wherein a distance between the first pivot joints is at least half as large as a width dimension of the first flap, wherein the width dimension extends orthogonally to rotation axes of the first pivot joints (See, e.g., Fig.1-5).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, Bayerische discloses: wherein rotation axes of the first and second pivot joints extend in parallel to the opening (See, e.g., Fig.1-5).
[Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, Bayerische discloses: wherein the first flap has a least one portion that in the closed state overlaps with an edge region of the frame member that is adjacent to the opening (See, e.g., Fig.1-5).
[Claim 6] Regarding Claim 6, Bayerische discloses: wherein the first flap has at least one protruding section that in the closed state protrudes relative to the opening (See, e.g., Fig.1-5).
[Claim 7] Regarding Claim 7, Bayerische discloses: wherein the protruding section is connected to at least one edge region of the first flap by an angled section or by a curved section (See, e.g., Fig.1-5).
[Claim 8] Regarding Claim 8, Bayerische discloses: wherein in the closed state, at least a portion of an outwards facing front face of the first flap is at least one of substantially aligned with or substantially extends in parallel to at least a portion of an outwards facing front face of the frame member (See, e.g., Fig.1-5).
[Claim 9] Regarding Claim 9, Bayerische discloses: wherein in the opened state, the first flap extends at a larger angle to the frame member and/or to the opening compared to the closed state (See, e.g., Fig.1-5), in particular wherein said angle is at least 25° larger than in the closed state (See, e.g., Fig.1-5).
[Claim 10] Regarding Claim 10, Bayerische discloses: wherein said angle is at least 25° larger than in the closed state (See, e.g., Fig.1-5).
[Claim 11] Regarding Claim 11, Bayerische discloses: wherein in the opened state, the first flap extends substantially orthogonally to the opening (See, e.g., Fig.1-5).
[Claim 12] Regarding Claim 12, Bayerische discloses: wherein in the opened state, the first flap is at least partially retracted with respect to at least one of the opening or the frame member (See, e.g., Fig.1-5).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayerische (DE 102014226027 A1 – Applicant provided prior art).
[Claim 13/14] Regarding Claim 13/14, Bayerische fails to explicitly teach: a second flap and a further first connecting member and a further second connecting member, wherein each of the further first connecting member and the further second connecting member is connected to the second flap by a respective first pivot joint, and wherein each of the further first connecting member and the further second connecting member is connected to the frame member by a respective second pivot joint (Claim 14) wherein the first flap and second flap are configured to rotate in opposite directions for changing between the closed state and the opened state (Claim 13)
However, Bayerische teaches a second flap and connecting members in an additional embodiment (See, e.g., Bayerische: P[0049]: “The motor vehicle can have, symmetrically thereto, a second frame element with further air passage openings and an air supply adjustment device with a further flap as described above. The tine and the right air supply adjustment device can be driven by a single drive element 11 arranged between the left flap and the right flap”).
Bayerische teaches that it is well known in the art of vehicle shutter design to provide a second flap and connecting members. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Bayerische modified with the additional disclosed embodiment such as taught by Bayerische, for the purpose of conveniently having an additional flap over the air opening which can beneficially allow a user to have greater control to change the opening/closing amount and thereby produce a mechanical advantage by increasing/decreasing the amount of air transmitted through the opening, which would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a second identical flap and connecting members mounted to said frame side by side, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See, e.g., St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8,549 F.2d 833 (7th Cir. 1977). Regarding a duplication of parts, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
Additionally, Applicant may wish to note that the Federal Circuit has held that it is permissible to combine two different embodiments disclosed in the same piece of prior art and noted that such a combination does not require a leap of inventiveness. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner‘s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record when taken alone or in combination with another does not teach or fairly suggest at this time at least, among other limitations: wherein at least one of the first connecting member and second connecting member connected to the first flap is coupled to one of the further first connecting member or further second connecting member connected to the second flap, so that a rotation of the coupled one of the first connecting member and second connecting member results in a rotation of the respectively coupled further first connecting member or further second connecting member, as claimed in Claim 15 (emphasis added to allowable limitations not suggested or taught by the prior art)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J ALLEN SHRIVER can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights