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 .
This is the first action on the merits for application 18/862,175. Responsive to the preliminary amendment filed 11/01/2024, Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/CN2023/084210, filed on 3/27/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2024, 2/17/2025 and 5/21/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the illegible reference numbers of Figs. 29, 31 and 33 are not in compliance with PCT Rule 11.13(e). 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “the air intake unit” should be changed to - -the at least one air intake unit- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, lines 2-3, “at least one air intake unit”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 8, “the first end of each of the plurality of blades” should be changed to - -a first end of each of the plurality of blades- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 9, “the second end of each of the plurality of blades” should be changed to - -a second end of each of the plurality of blades- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 16 (last line of the claim), “the air intake unit” should be changed to - -the at least one air intake unit- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, lines 2-3, “at least one air intake unit”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “the shape” should be changed to - -a shape- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “the air intake unit mounting port” should be changed to - -the air intake unit mounting ports- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 2, line 2, “a plurality of air intake unit mounting ports”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6, “the air intake unit mounting port” should be changed to - -the air intake unit mounting ports- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 2, line 2, “a plurality of air intake unit mounting ports”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1-2, “the air intake unit” should be changed to - -the at least one air intake unit- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, lines 2-3, “at least one air intake unit”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “the air intake unit” should be changed to - -the at least one air intake unit- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, lines 2-3, “at least one air intake unit”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “channels are formed” should be changed to - -channels formed- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “the same air intake unit” should be changed to - -a same air intake unit- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5, “the air intake unit” should be changed to - -the at least one air intake unit- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, lines 2-3, “at least one air intake unit”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 10 (fourth from last line of the claim), “the air intake unit mounting port” should be changed to - -the air intake unit mounting ports- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 5, line 7, “a plurality of air intake unit mounting ports”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 12 (second from last line of the claim), “the air intake unit mounting port” should be changed to - -the air intake unit mounting ports- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 5, line 7, “a plurality of air intake unit mounting ports”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1-2, “the blade link mechanism” should be changed to - -each blade link mechanism- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, lines 4-5, “a plurality of blade link mechanisms”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “the blade” should be changed to - -each blade- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 4, “a plurality of blades”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 2-3, “the blade” should be changed to - -each blade- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 4, “a plurality of blades”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “the blade link mechanism” should be changed to - -each blade link mechanism- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, lines 4-5, “a plurality of blade link mechanisms”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1-2, “the blade link mechanism” should be changed to - -each blade link mechanism- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, lines 4-5, “a plurality of blade link mechanisms”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 12, “the blade” should be changed to - -each blade- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 4, “a plurality of blades”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 18 (second from last line of the claim), “the separation” should be changed to - -a separation- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 18 (second from last line of the claim), “the blade link mechanism” should be changed to - -each blade link mechanism- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, lines 4-5, “a plurality of blade link mechanisms”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 19 (last line of the claim), “the blade” should be changed to - -each blade- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 4, “a plurality of blades”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “the blade link mechanism” should be changed to - -each blade link mechanism- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, lines 4-5, “a plurality of blade link mechanisms”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “the blade link mechanism” should be changed to - -each blade link mechanism- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, lines 4-5, “a plurality of blade link mechanisms”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6, “the deformation” should be changed to - -a deformation- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 7 (last line of the claim), “the penetration area” should be changed to - -the at least one penetration area- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 9, line 5, “at least one penetration area”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “the deformation” should be changed to - -a deformation- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5 (last line of the claim), “the blade link mechanism” should be changed to - -each blade link mechanism- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, lines 4-5, “a plurality of blade link mechanisms”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 7 (third from last line of the claim), “the vehicle” should be changed to - -a vehicle- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 7-8 (second and third from last line of the claim), “the blade” should be changed to - -each blade- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 4, “a plurality of blades”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 9 (last line of the claim), “the air intake unit” should be changed to - -the at least one air intake unit- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, lines 2-3, “at least one air intake unit”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “its peripheral portion” should be changed to - -a peripheral portion of the second separate body- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 16, line 4, “the second separate body”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1, “the active air intake grille” should be changed to - -an active air intake grille- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “the air intake unit” should be changed to - -the at least one air intake unit- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 17, line 3, “at least one air intake unit”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5, “the blade” should be changed to - -the blades- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 17, line 4, “a plurality of blades”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6, “the blade link mechanism” should be changed to - -the blade link mechanisms- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 17, line 4, “a plurality of blade link mechanisms”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 7, “the blade” should be changed to - -the blades- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 17, line 4, “a plurality of blades”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 7-8, “the blade link mechanism” should be changed to - -the blade link mechanisms- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 17, line 4, “a plurality of blade link mechanisms”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 8-9, “the blade” should be changed to - -the blades- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 17, line 4, “a plurality of blades”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 9 (last line of the claim), “the air intake unit” should be changed to - -the at least one air intake unit- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 17, line 3, “at least one air intake unit”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5 (second from last line of the claim), “the blade” should be changed to - -the blades- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 17, line 4, “a plurality of blades”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5 (second from last line of the claim), “the air intake unit” should be changed to - -the at least one air intake unit- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 17, line 3, “at least one air intake unit”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 5-6, “through blade link mechanism” should be changed to - -through the blade link mechanisms- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 17, line 4, “a plurality of blade link mechanisms”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1, “the blade link mechanism” should be changed to - -each blade link mechanisms- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 17, line 4, “a plurality of blade link mechanisms”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “the blade” should be changed to - -each blade- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 17, line 4, “a plurality of blades”). 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, 2, 5, 6, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 1983-025227 (cited by Applicant on the IDS filed 2/17/2025).
Regarding Claim 1, JP 1983-025227 discloses an active air intake grille (Figs. 1 and 2), comprising: a fixed bracket (generally indicated at 2 in Fig. 1), a link bracket (6, 6’), a driving device (7), a first link mechanism (8) and at least one air intake unit (1, 9, 9’); the air intake unit comprising a plurality of blades (1) and a plurality of blade link mechanisms (9, 9’); the link bracket being rotatably connected to a first end of each of the plurality of blade link mechanisms (Figs. 1 and 2), and a second end of each of the plurality of blade link mechanisms being rotatably connected to the first end of each of the plurality of blades respectively (Figs. 1 and 2), the second end of each of the plurality of blades being rotatably connected to the fixed bracket (Figs. 1 and 2); a first end of the first link mechanism being connected to the link bracket (Figs. 1 and 2), and a second end of the first link mechanism being connected to the driving device (Figs. 1 and 2); the driving device driving the first link mechanism to move (A to B in Figs. 1 and 2), the first link mechanism driving the link bracket to move (Figs. 1 and 2), the link bracket driving the blade link mechanisms to move (Figs. 1 and 2), and the blade link mechanisms driving the first ends of the blades to rotate to open or close the air intake unit (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 2, JP 1983-025227 discloses the fixed bracket is provided with a plurality of air intake unit mounting ports (generally indicated as the shape around each blade 1 in Fig. 2), and the air intake unit mounting ports correspond to the at least one air intake unit respectively (Figs. 1 and 2); the shape of the air intake unit mounting port comprises at least one of a circular shape and a polygonal shape (Figs. 1 and 2), and the plurality of blades are arranged along a circumferential edge of the air intake unit mounting port (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 5, JP 1983-025227 discloses the air intake unit is configured as, when the air intake unit is in an open state, a plurality of air intake channels are formed on the active air intake grille between the blades of the same air intake unit (Fig. 1); the air intake channels are configured as air is capable of passing through them and into the active air intake grille (Fig. 1); when the air intake unit is in a closed state (Fig. 1), the air intake channels disappear; the fixed bracket is provided with a plurality of air intake unit mounting ports (generally indicated as the shape around each blade 1 in Fig. 2), and the air intake unit mounting ports correspond to the at least one air intake unit respectively (Figs. 1 and 2), the blades in the same air intake unit are configured as, the link bracket moves in a direction away from the air intake unit mounting port, and the air intake channels are formed between the blades (Fig. 1); after the formation of the air intake channels, the link bracket is reset in a direction close to the air intake unit mounting port, and the air intake channels disappear (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, JP 1983-025227 discloses the blade link mechanism is rotatably connected to the blade and is clamped with the blade (Figs. 1 and 2), and the blade link mechanism is rotatably connected to the link bracket and is clamped with the link bracket (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 17, JP 1983-025227 discloses a vehicle (Figs. 1 and 2), comprising an active air intake grille (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a fixed bracket (generally indicated at 2 in Fig. 1), a link bracket (6, 6’), a driving device (7), and at least one air intake unit (1, 9, 9’); the air intake unit comprising a plurality of blades (1) and a plurality of blade link mechanisms (9, 9’); the link bracket being movable relative to the fixed bracket (Figs. 1 and 2), the blade being rotatably connected to the fixed bracket (Figs. 1 and 2), the blade link mechanism being rotatably connected with the link bracket and the blade (Figs. 1 and 2), the driving device being capable of providing a driving force to drive the blade link mechanism and the link bracket moving relative to the fixed bracket (Figs. 1 and 2), so as to drive the blade to open or close the air intake unit (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 18, JP 1983-025227 discloses the active air intake grille further comprises a first link mechanism (8), the first link mechanism is connected between the driving device and the link bracket (Figs. 1 and 2), the first link mechanism is capable of being extended or shortened under the drive of the driving device (Figs. 1 and 2), so as to drive the link bracket to move relative to the fixed bracket (Figs. 1 and 2), and drive the blade to open or close the air intake unit through blade link mechanism (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7-16 and 19-21 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KLOP (US 10,730,384) discloses a vehicle air flow shutter assembly (see Figs 4 and 5).
GREEN (US 1,932,244) discloses a shutter actuator mechanism (see Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-4781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm (CST).
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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at (571)270-3415. 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.
EDWIN YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/Edwin A Young/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights