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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's argument that the base reference Lentz fails to teach a channel between the frame and structural opening is not persuasive. Applicant argues that Lentz diverts water droplets / moisture into the jamb and not into a channel but ignores Lentz figure 7 which includes " a modified sill 20a which is spaced above a sill extension cap member C on the wall W to ensure the drainage of liquid from the louver assembly 10" (Lentz column 3 line 67 -column 4 line 4). Examiner has interpreted the flow path of liquid beneath the frame and across the sill extension cap member which has been interpreted as a drain pan as being a channel between the frame and the structural opening of the wall, thus reading upon applicant's claim.
Drawings
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 "structural opening", "frame being mounted within said structural opening" and "channel between said frame and said structural opening" must be shown 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 6-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The "structural opening" in claim 1, "frame mounted within said structural opening" and "channel between said frame and said structural opening" in claim 1. The specification makes no references to a "structural opening" and the closest description in the specification being "an opening in a wall of a building" in pargraph [0020]. Further, since the "structural opening" is not supported by the original specification the further limitations of "frame being mounted within said structural opening", and "defining a channel between said frame and said structural opening". Further if the opening in a wall described in paragraph [0020] is the structural opening it is unclear how a channel can be formed between the frame and the structural opening since the frame 12 is situated directly atop the wall defining an opening (see specification paragraph [0021] and figures 1-3).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz et al. (US 4,985,555) in view of Bjorn (US 2020/0284466 A1), and Bishop (US 11,266, B1).
Regarding claim 1, Lentz discloses a louver assembly (Lentz 10) oriented within a structural opening (Lentz column 2 lines 44-48), said louver assembly regulating an inlet of air, comprising:
A first blade stack (see Lentz figure 1) having a plurality of elongated blades (Lentz 12) mounted within a frame (Lentz 14, 16, and 18), said frame being mounted within said structural opening (Lentz column 2 lines 52-57) and defining a channel (defined by drain pan C, see annotated figure) between said frame and said structural opening (see Lentz figure 7, examiner notes Lentz has defined the frame as being jambs 16 and 18 and header 14, therefore the channel atop drain pan C is between the frame and the structural opening);
A drain pan (Lentz C) positioned within the louver assembly (see Lentz figure 7), said drain pan including a downwardly depending leg member (see Lentz figure 7);
Wherein said plurality of elongated blades serve to divert incoming water droplets into vertically extending channel portions (Lentz 16a and 18a, column 3 lines 20-26) and from there is diverted into the channel (see annotated figure) and outside of said frame (Lentz column 3 line 67 -column 4 line 4)
PNG
media_image1.png
280
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lentz figure 7 (annotated)
Lentz is silent regarding a windbreak with an outwardly angled distal drip edge.
However, Bjorn teaches a louver assembly comprising a windbreak (see annotated figure) adjacent to a front face of the louver assembly and obstructing a front face of a channel defined by an integrated drain pan (see annotated figure) with a channel formed between the windbreak and a downwardly depending leg of the drain pan (see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image2.png
591
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bjorn figure 5a (annotated)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lentz's louver assembly to utilize Bjorn's teachings of a windbreak positioned adjacent to the front of the louver assembly forming a channel with the downwardly depending leg of the drain pan to produce a predictable result of preventing wind from blowing fluid in the drain pan inward and entering the structure thereby improving effectiveness of the louver at preventing water entry.
In the related field of drip edges Bishop teaches a rooftop drip edge (Bishop 10) that includes an outwardly angled distal drip edge (Bishop 50) to distance drips from the fascia (Bishop 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to
modify the louver assembly to incorporate Bishop's teaching of an outwardly angled distal drip edge to Bjorn's windbreak to prevent dripping water from damaging the wall below the louver assembly.
Regarding claim 6, Lentz, Bjorn, and Bishop as applied to claim 1 teach a windbreak (see Bjorn figure 5a) extending across the entire width of said channel (see Bjorn figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, Lentz, Bjorn, and Bishop as applied to claim 1 teach the channel is a flowpath for an outflow of water from the louver assembly (see Lentz figure 7).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz al. (US 4,985,555), Bjorn (US 2020/0284466 A1), and Bishop (US 11,266,141 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tokui (WO 2009/044847 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lentz, Bjorn, and Bishop as applied to claim 1 teach horizontal louver blades (Lentz 12).
Lentz, Bjorn, and Bishop as applied to claim 1 are silent regarding vertically extending blades.
However, Tokui teaches a waterproof ventilator comprising both horizontal blades (Tokui 3) and vertical blades (Tokui 7) to provide better protection from rainwater entering in high winds.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lentz's louver assembly to utilize a set of elongated blades horizontally spaced and extending in a vertical direction and a set of elongated blades vertically spaced and extending in a horizontal direction to provide better protection from water entry to the ventilation opening.
Regarding claim 8, Lentz, Bjorn, Bishop and Tokui as applied to claim 7 teach two blade stacks with one extending horizontally (see Tokui figure 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm 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, 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.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights