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 1-4 & 6-17 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 & 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A) The term “core” in Claim 1, lines 11-12, renders the claim indefinite because it is claimed as different than the grille, but appears to be referring to different attachment methods of the grille to the frame. For the purposes of examination, “core” has been construed to be the grille.
C) Claims 2-4 & 6-10 are also rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
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) 1-4 & 6-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2005124054 A1 to Lennox in view of US Patent Number 6,705,052 to Larson and further in view of US Patent Number 3,782,441 to Turner and further in view of US Patent Number 3,996,845 to Harris.
A) As per Claim 1, Lennox teaches a one piece dry wall extrusion grille (Lennox: Figures 12-13, the Examiner notes that when assembled and connected it all makes one piece) comprising:
a frame (Lennox: best shown in Figure 13, Items 91);
said dry wall extrusion grille having vanes (Lennox: Figure 12, Item 87) having openings to permit airflow, located in said frame;
through holes (Lennox: Figure 12, holes in Item 83)
a flexible mounting flange (Lennox: Figure 12, Items 83 is flexible corner bead as applicants flange) located between a top and bottom edge of the frame extending outwardly from said frame;
wherein said extrusion grille is used with a fixed core, a core welded directly to said frame, or a removable core for access to controls or filtration behind said grille (The Examiner notes that this is limiting how the grille is used. Therefore, the structure must be capable of use with the cores as claimed, which Lennox certainly is);
a lip configured to be used as a knife guide (Lennox: Figure 12, Item 85).
Lennox does not teach that indented slots, said indented slots defined as small recesses in said flexible mounting flange that receive plaster, joint compound or mud;
said grille or register attached to said frame by a tether(s), cable(s) or wire(s) to ensure that said grille or register does not separate from said frame.
However, Larson teaches indented slots, said indented slots defined as small recesses in said flexible mounting flange that receive plaster, joint compound or mud (Larson: Figure 2, Item 30).
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 Lennox by adding small recesses, as taught by Larson, 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 Lennox with these aforementioned teachings of Larson with the motivation of providing better connection between the mud and frame.
Lennox in view of Larson does not teach said grille or register attached to said frame by a tether(s), cable(s) or wire(s) to ensure that said grille or register does not separate from said frame.
However, Turner teaches attaching a removable duct feature (analogous to the grille/register) to said frame by a tether(s), cable(s) or wire(s) to ensure that feature does not separate from outside of said frame (Turner: Figure 2, Item 68).
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 Lennox in view of Larson by adding a tether, as taught by Turner, 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 Lennox in view of Larson with these aforementioned teachings of Turner with the motivation of the grille does not get misplaced for damaged during removal/maintenance.
Lennox in view of Larson and Turner does not teach cross members perpendicular to the vanes.
However, Harris teaches cross members perpendicular to the vanes (Harris: Figure 1, Items 46).
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 Lennox in view of Larson and Turner by adding cross members, as taught by Harris, 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 Lennox in view of Larson and Turner with these aforementioned teachings of Harris with the motivation of further securing the vanes to the frame and prevent deflection of the vanes.
B) As per Claim 2, Lennox in view of Larson, Turner and Harris teaches that said flexible mounting flange is fastened to a wall or ceiling with said through holes being pre-perforated (Lennox: Figure 12, holes in Item 83).
C) As per Claim 3, Lennox in view of Larson, Turner and Harris teaches that sheet rock screws (Lennox: holes in Item 83 same as Item 62 in Figure 5a which hold drywall screws).
D) As per Claim 4, Lennox in view of Larson, Turner and Harris teaches that said frame is constructed of mitered pieces welded together (Lennox: Figure 12, all four sides are mitered with flange 83; pg. 17, lines 3-4).
E) As per Claim 6, Lennox in view of Larson, Turner and Harris teaches that said register or grille is attached to said frame with mechanical fasteners, clips, magnets, pins, studs, snaps or ball catches (Lennox: pg. 17, lines 15-17).
F) As per Claim 7, Lennox in view of Larson, Turner and Harris teaches that said frame is installed with said sheet rock screws before plaster or a joint compound is applied (Lennox: holes in Item 83 same as Item 62 in Figure 5a which hold drywall screws).
G) As per Claim 8, Lennox in view of Larson, Turner and Harris teaches that said extrusion grille is a fully welded construction (Lennox: pg. 17, lines 3-4).
H) As per Claim 9, Lennox in view of Larson, Turner and Harris teaches that said extrusion grille is installed in a wall board or plaster ranging from substantially 1/4" through substantially 3/4" thick (The Examiner notes that this is limiting how the grille is used. Therefore, the structure must be capable of use with a wall board or plaster ranging from about 1/4" thru about 3/4" thick, which Lennox certainly is).
Lennox in view of Larson, Turner and Harris does not explicitly teach that an inside of said extrusion grille frame extends about 3/4" deep into an opening.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the depth ¾”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (a depth into an opening), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that depth into the opening is a result effective variable because the deeper the better the connection to the duct, but the less flexible the installation can be. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make depth ¾”, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
I) As per Claim 10, Lennox in view of Larson, Turner and Harris teaches that said extrusion grille is mounted, so that said entire frame and grille are flush to a wall providing a seamless installation (Lennox: mud feathered into Item 83 to create flush grille; Pg. 17, line 14).
J) As per Claim 11, Lennox teaches a one piece dry wall extrusion grille (Lennox: Figures 12-13, the Examiner notes that when assembled and connected it all makes one piece) comprising:
a frame (Lennox: best shown in Figure 13, Items 91);
said dry wall extrusion grille having vanes (Lennox: Figure 12, Item 87) having openings to permit airflow, located in said frame;
through holes (Lennox: Figure 12, holes in Item 83) located in a flexible mounting flange;
said flexible mounting flange located between a top and bottom edge of the frame extending outwardly from said frame (Lennox: Figure 12, Items 83 is flexible corner bead as applicants flange).
Lennox does not teach that indented slots, said indented slots defined as small recesses in said flexible mounting flange that receive plaster, joint compound or mud;
said grille or register attached to said frame by a tether(s), cable(s) or wire(s) to ensure that said grille or register does not separate from said frame;
said frame being extended to at least 3/4".
However, Larson teaches indented slots, said indented slots defined as small recesses in said flexible mounting flange that receive plaster, joint compound or mud (Larson: Figure 2, Item 30).
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 Lennox by adding small recesses, as taught by Larson, 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 Lennox with these aforementioned teachings of Larson with the motivation of providing better connection between the mud and frame.
Lennox in view of Larson does not teach said grille or register attached to said frame by a tether(s), cable(s) or wire(s) to ensure that said grille or register does not separate from said frame.
However, Turner teaches attaching a removable duct feature (analogous to the grille/register) to said frame by a tether(s), cable(s) or wire(s) to ensure that feature does not separate from outside of said frame (Turner: Figure 2, Item 68).
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 Lennox in view of Larson by adding a tether, as taught by Turner, 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 Lennox in view of Larson with these aforementioned teachings of Turner with the motivation of the grille does not get misplaced for damaged during removal/maintenance.
Lennox in view of Larson and Turner does not teach cross members perpendicular to the vanes.
However, Harris teaches cross members perpendicular to the vanes (Harris: Figure 1, Items 46).
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 Lennox in view of Larson and Turner by adding cross members, as taught by Harris, 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 Lennox in view of Larson and Turner with these aforementioned teachings of Harris with the motivation of further securing the vanes to the frame and prevent deflection of the vanes.
Lennox in view of Larson, Turner and Harris does not explicitly teach that an inside of said extrusion grille frame extends about 3/4" deep into an opening.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the depth ¾”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (a depth into an opening), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that depth into the opening is a result effective variable because the deeper the better the connection to the duct, but the less flexible the installation can be. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make depth ¾”, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
K) As per Claim 12, Lennox teaches a one piece dry wall extrusion grille (Lennox: Figures 12-13, the Examiner notes that when assembled and connected it all makes one piece) comprising;
a frame (Lennox: best shown in Figure 13, Items 91);
said dry wall extrusion grille having vanes (Lennox: Figure 12, Item 87) having openings to permit airflow, located in said frame;
through holes (Lennox: Figure 12, holes in Item 83) located in a flexible mounting flange;
said flexible mounting flange located between a top and bottom edge of the frame extending outwardly from said frame (Lennox: Figure 12, Items 83 is flexible corner bead as applicants flange);
mounting strips attached to a bottom of said frame (Lennox: Figure 13, tabs 92, better shown in Figure 11 as Item 79a).
Lennox does not teach that indented slots, said indented slots defined as small recesses in said flexible mounting flange that receive plaster, joint compound or mud;
said grille or register attached to said frame by a tether(s), cable(s) or wire(s) to ensure that said grille or register does not separate from said frame.
However, Larson teaches indented slots, said indented slots defined as small recesses in said flexible mounting flange that receive plaster, joint compound or mud (Larson: Figure 2, Item 30).
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 Lennox by adding small recesses, as taught by Larson, 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 Lennox with these aforementioned teachings of Larson with the motivation of providing better connection between the mud and frame.
Lennox in view of Larson does not teach said grille or register attached to said frame by a tether(s), cable(s) or wire(s) to ensure that said grille or register does not separate from said frame.
However, Turner teaches attaching a removable duct feature (analogous to the grille/register) to said frame by a tether(s), cable(s) or wire(s) to ensure that feature does not separate from outside of said frame (Turner: Figure 2, Item 68).
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 Lennox in view of Larson by adding a tether, as taught by Turner, 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 Lennox in view of Larson with these aforementioned teachings of Turner with the motivation of the grille does not get misplaced for damaged during removal/maintenance.
Lennox in view of Larson and Turner does not teach cross members perpendicular to the vanes.
However, Harris teaches cross members perpendicular to the vanes (Harris: Figure 1, Items 46).
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 Lennox in view of Larson and Turner by adding cross members, as taught by Harris, 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 Lennox in view of Larson and Turner with these aforementioned teachings of Harris with the motivation of further securing the vanes to the frame and prevent deflection of the vanes.
L) As per Claim 13, Lennox in view of Larson, Turner and Harris teaches that said mounting strips are attached to said frame via welding (Lennox: Figure 13, tabs 92, better shown in Figure 11 as Item 79a; pg. 15, lines 19-20, welding).
M) As per Claim 14, Lennox in view of Larson, Turner and Harris teaches that said mounting strips are made as an integral part of said frame in one piece extrusion (Lennox: Figure 13, tabs 92, better shown in Figure 11 as Item 79a; pg. 15, lines 19-20, welding).
N) As per Claim 15, Lennox in view of Larson, Turner and Harris teaches that an attachment device for attaching said linear bar grille to said frame (Lennox: pg. 17, lines 15-17).
O) As per Claim 16, Lennox in view of Larson, Turner and Harris teaches that said attachment device includes mechanical fasteners (Lennox: pg. 17, lines 15-17), threaded inserts in said mounting strips to be used with mechanical fasteners, or a projection on the frame or said mounting strips for use with spring steel clips or magnets.
P) As per Claim 17, Lennox in view of Larson, Turner and Harris teaches that various style and depth angled edges to capture plaster or joint compound (Larson: Figure 2, grooves 30 have a wider groove near opening in building, thereby having two different styles).
Response to Arguments
Some of Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 & 6-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Other of Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A) The Applicant asserts that “core” is a term of art and is therefore definite. The Examiner notes that the meaning of the term “core” was not what made the language indefinite. Instead, it was the fact that the core appears to refer to the grille with vanes and cross-members, but is stated as a separate thing. It is not clear what refers to what in the applicants disclosure with the language.
B) The Applicant asserts that in inclusion of “drywall” within the body of the claim is not taught by the prior art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The term is used to describe what the grille is used with. It does not provide any structure to the claims and therefore the art must merely be capable of use with drywall, which the prior art cited above certainly can. The Applicant further asserts that the term drywall grille has a specific definition. The Examiner notes that the prior art meets the definition and the specific definition is not specified within the original specification.
C) The Applicant asserts that Lennox does not teach a frame. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The frame is not required to have vanes and cross-members as applicant states (that is the grille). The frame does have Item 83 extending outward as cited. Therefore, all limitations of the term “frame” are covered by the prior art. The Examiner notes that other limitations including the tether are taught by other references and in combination teach all the limitations of the claims.
D) The Applicant asserts that the holes in 83 are not through holes. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is not clear how the holes are not identical to applicant’s and they are certainly through holes.
E) The Applicant asserts that Item 85 in Lennox is not a lip configured to be used as a knife guide and Lennox does not teach this intended use. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Though the language in Lennox is different than the applicant’s disclosure, the structure of Item 85 can read on the term “lip”. The Examiner further notes that “configured to be used as a knife guide” is the intended use of the lip and therefore because Item 85 CAN be used as a knife guide, the limitations of the claim are met.
F) The Applicant further argues striations are mentioned in Larson to be high surface area and therefore do not qualify as small recesses. The Examiner notes these striations include low spots between the high surfaces that certainly qualify as small recesses.
G) In response to applicant's argument that Larson is nonanalogous art for being a soffit vent, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, vents having flange structures to allow flush finishing surfaces is certainly the same field of endeavor. The Examiner notes that this is not merely anything providing a flush surface, but vents providing a flush surface.
H) The Applicant asserts that Turner does not teach preventing the system from falling to the ground. The Examiner notes that this is the intended use of the tether and therefore Turner’s tether must be capable of preventing the system from falling to the ground. In this case, the tether is certainly capable of such use.
I) The Applicant asserts that the prior art does not teach that the frame extends about ¾” into the opening. The Examiner notes that while Lennox does not explicitly teach this number, having the frame extend about ¾” into the opening would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find through routine optimization as cited above.
J) In response to applicant's argument that Turner is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Turner is the pertinent to the particular problem of tethering a removable item to the opening from which it can be removed.
K) The Applicant asserts that Lennox does not teach the welded features of the claim. The Examiner notes that Lennox literally teaches welding the pieces together as cited above.
L) The Applicant asserts that adding supports from Harris to the air grate of Lennox would break Lennox as the vanes in Lennox move. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Items 88 are fixed dividers in the air grate 87. Adding structural components would not change the purpose of function of these airflow dividers at all.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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, STEVE MCALLISTER can be reached on 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762