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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the rejections under 112(a) and 112(b) and they are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument that Bjorn does not teach a channel between a frame and structural opening and therefore one of ordinary skill would not look to Bjorn for teachings of how to protect a flow channel between a frame and structural opening is not persuasive. The base reference Lentz teaches an unprotected channel between frame and a structural opening and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the teachings of Bjorn’s channel located at the bottom of a frame that sits within a structural opening that has a windbreak positioned to shield the channel would be applicable to Lentz’s channel. The difference between the two references is not enough to prevent one of ordinary skill to apply teachings from one reference to the other reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 11,266,141 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), wherein said blades include one or more hooks (Lentz 12c, 12d, and 12h), said frame being mounted within said structural opening (Lentz column 2 lines 52-57) and defining a channel (defined by drain pan C) 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);
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_image1.png
585
528
media_image1.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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights