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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 09/17/2024 & 10/07/2024 have been considered by the Examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 & 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE102016122142A1 to Mayer.
A) As per Claims 1, 5-7, 12 & 16-18, Mayer teaches an airflow redirector (Mayer: Figures 2a-2c) for an air register having an air vent housing with an inlet that is fluidically coupled to an outlet via a cavity, the airflow redirector comprising:
an inlet frame positioned at the inlet (Mayer: Items 22 and left end of Item 28 in Figures 2a-2c);
a frame assembly (Mayer: Items 14, 16 & 20) positioned at the outlet, wherein the frame assembly is configured to pivot relative to the air vent housing about an axis of rotation between a first extreme (Mayer: Figure 2a) and a second extreme (Mayer: Figure 2c) via a neutral position (Mayer: Figure 2b);
a first flexible air guide (Mayer: Figure 2a-2c, top Item 24) positioned in the cavity and coupled to each of the inlet frame and to the frame assembly; and
a second flexible air guide (Mayer: Figure 2a-2c, bottom Item 24)positioned in the cavity and coupled to each of the inlet frame and to the frame assembly,
wherein each of the first flexible air guide and the second flexible air guide are configured to flex as the frame assembly pivots between the first extreme and the second extreme, and wherein the first flexible air guide and the second flexible air guide are spaced apart to define a flow path therebetween configured to guide fluid flow from the inlet to the outlet (Mayer: shown in Figures 2a-2c, Item 28 is bent with Items 24).
B) As per Claims 2-4, 13-15 & 19-20, Mayer teaches that each of the first flexible air guide and the second flexible air guide is fixedly coupled to the frame assembly (Mayer: Figure 2a-2c, Items 24 are fixed to Items 30 at front) and each of the first flexible air guide and the second flexible air guide is slidingly coupled to the inlet frame, wherein the first flexible air guide is slidingly coupled to the inlet frame via a first slot and the second flexible air guide is slidingly coupled to the inlet frame via a second slot (Mayer: Figures 2a-2c, Items 24 are attached to items 22 at slots 30).
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.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of US Patent Number 4,957,036 to Fujihara.
A) As per Claim 8, Mayer teaches all the limitations except that a plurality of flexible vanes coupled to the frame assembly to define an airflow redirector, wherein the frame assembly comprises a first frame and a second frame that is configured to translate relative to the first frame along an axis that is parallel to the axis of rotation, and wherein the plurality of flexible vanes is coupled to each of the first frame and the second frame and configured to flex when the second frame translates relative to the first frame.
However, Fujihara teaches a plurality of flexible vanes (Fujihara: Figure 8, Item 2) coupled to the frame assembly to define an airflow redirector, wherein the frame assembly comprises a first frame (Fujihara: Figure 8, Item 3, with portion of Item 1 connecting ends of Items 3) and a second frame (Fujihara: Figure 8, Item 9) that is configured to translate relative to the first frame along an axis that is parallel to the axis of rotation, and wherein the plurality of flexible vanes is coupled to each of the first frame and the second frame and configured to flex when the second frame translates relative to the first frame (Fujihara: Col. 9, lines 10-37).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Mayer by adding flexible vanes, as taught by Fujihara, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mayer with these aforementioned teachings of Fujihara with the motivation of being able to control the airflow direction laterally out of the outlet.
B) As per Claim 9, Mayer in view of Fujihara teaches that the second frame is configured to translate relative to the first frame between a first extreme and a second extreme via a neutral position (Fujihara: Col. 9, lines 10-37).
C) As per Claim 10, Mayer in view of Fujihara teaches that the plurality of flexible vanes is configured to direct airflow in a first direction along the axis when the second frame is positioned at the first extreme (Fujihara: Col. 9, lines 10-37).
D) As per Claim 11, Mayer in view of Fujihara teaches that the plurality of flexible vanes is configured to direct airflow in a second direction along the axis that is opposite the first direction when the second frame is positioned at the second extreme (Fujihara: Col. 9, lines 10-37).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights