Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/867,658

CASSETTE FOR A DEVICE FOR CONTROLLING THE CIRCULATION OF AN AIR FLOW OF A MOTOR VEHICLE AND SHUTTER FOR SUCH A CASSETTE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 20, 2024
Priority
May 24, 2022 — FR FR2204988 +1 more
Examiner
BABAA, NAEL N
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Renault S.A.S.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allowance Rate
432 granted / 561 resolved
+17.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
583
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
50.8%
+10.8% vs TC avg
§102
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
§112
31.6%
-8.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 561 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 13-19), Species I (Figs. 1-7) in the reply filed on 7/13/2026 is acknowledged. 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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “stop means” in claim 16; Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a transmission member” in claim 16; Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. After reviewing the specification, the transmission member appears to be drawn to a stud, or known equivalents (per paragraph [0057]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 13-15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FOR1 (FR3070633A1 – provided by Applicant in the IDS). Regarding claim 13, FOR1 teaches a cassette for a device for controlling circulation of an air flow of a vehicle (see Title, Abstract), the cassette comprising: a frame (see Fig. 1) and a plurality of movable shutters arranged on said frame (4, Fig. 1, see Abstract), at least two adjacent shutters being attached to each other and arranged one after the other along a first axis (see Fig. 1), each of said two shutters comprising a body having, along the first axis, a first end portion and a second end portion opposite each other (see Fig. 2, the shutters 4 have a body on an axis with two end portions) and comprising respectively a first coupling member and a second coupling member that are at least partially complementary in shape (2, see Description, see Figs. 1, 4, and 5) , said end portions being configured so that the bodies of the two adjacent shutters are connected to each other integrally and reversibly at least by coupling the first coupling member of one of the two adjacent shutters to the second coupling member of the other of said shutters in a coupling zone such that a movement exerted on either one of said two shutters is transmitted to the other of said shutters (see Description, “The actuator 2 also controls the rotation of so-called secondary shutter flaps 8. The actuator 2 drives the control shutter 4 and secondary shutter 8 according to the same rotary movement defined around an axis of rotation represented by the axis A”). Regarding claim 14, FOR1 teaches the cassette as claimed in claim 13, wherein the movement is a rotation about the first axis (see Description). Regarding claim 15, FOR1 teaches the cassette as claimed in claim 13, wherein the first coupling member and the second coupling member of at least one of the two adjacent shutters are centered on the first axis (see Fig. 1, see Description). Regarding claim 17, FOR1 teaches the cassette as claimed in claim 13, wherein the frame further comprises at least one arm configured to cooperate with the first coupling member and/or with the second coupling member within the coupling zone connecting the two adjacent shutters (28, Fig. 5). Regarding claim 18, FOR1 teaches the cassette as claimed in claim 17, wherein at least one of the first coupling member and/or the second coupling member within the coupling zone comprises a flange configured to butt against the at least one arm in at least one or the other of the directions defined by the first axis (see the flange on 28 in Fig. 5). Regarding claim 19, FOR1 teaches the cassette as claimed in claim 13, wherein the first end portion of each of the two adjacent shutters further comprises at least one first member for transmitting a movement and the second end portion of each of the two adjacent shutters further comprises at least one second member for transmitting a movement (18, Fig. 6, see Description), at least the first transmission member of one of the two adjacent shutters being configured to cooperate with the second transmission member of the other of said two shutters in the coupling zone (see Fig. 6). 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. 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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOR1, alone. Regarding claim 16, FOR1 teaches the cassette as claimed in claim 13, comprising at least one stop means and the other of the first coupling member and the second coupling member has a hollow cylindrical shape configured to receive either the first coupling member or the second coupling member (38, Fig, 6, see Description), an inner surface of said hollow cylindrical shape comprising a stop element, complementary to the stop means, configured to connect the two adjacent shutters together integrally such that the movement exerted on either one of said two shutters is transmitted to the other of said shutters (see Description, “The connecting element 24 can also include one or more several stops or ribs projecting from the internal surface 22 coming within one or more grooves arranged within the drive member 26”). but does not teach, within the two adjacent shutters, either the first coupling member or the second coupling member has a cylindrical shape. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 with coupling members which have a cylindrical shape, as it has been held that a change of shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)-270-5054. 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. /NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 20, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12742578
CONTROL METHOD, APPARATUS, AND DEVICE FOR COMPRESSOR, STORAGE MEDIUM, AND REFRIGERATION SYSTEM
3y 0m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12741507
Cabin Climate Control Assembly
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12736260
REFRIGERATION SYSTEM WITH HEAT PUMP COMPRESSION
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12736261
AIR CONDITIONER
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12736248
AIR CONDITIONER, FOUR-WAY VALVE ABNORMAL DIRECTION CHANGE DETECTION METHOD AND DEFROSTING CONTROL METHOD
1y 6m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+3.8%)
2y 9m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 561 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month