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 2 claims 10-21 in the reply filed on 10/09/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/09/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim currently reads "... the groove is formed to guide water and out of the groove". Clarity will be improved by amending to "... the groove is formed to guide water out of the groove.". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 17 and 18 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the shield" in line two of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In applying art the claim has been treated as depending upon claim 12 which recites a shield.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the shield" in line two of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In applying art the claim has been treated as depending upon claim 12 which recites a shield.
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) 10, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubank (US 3,855,814) in view of Hernandez et al. (US 11,262,001).
Regarding claim 10, Eubank teaches a caravan trailer (Eubank 11) comprising a housing (Eubank 12) that comprises an outer shell (see Eubank figure 1) and inherently has an inner panel that is not shown in figures and further comprises a door (see Eubank figure 1).
Eubank is silent regarding an air inlet in the side of the housing.
However, Hernandez teaches an air vent (Hernandez 20) in the sidewall (Hernandez 12) of a recreational vehicle that is also useable with trailers (Hernandez column 3 line 54 – column 4 line 4), that comprises an air inlet in the side section of the housing (see Hernandez figure 1)comprising a plurality of horizontal grooves (Hernandez 29) in the outer shell, where a ventilation opening is formed in the upper part of each of the at least one groove (see Hernandez figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Eubank’s trailer to incorporate Hernandez’s teachings of a vent in the sidewall of a trailer to produce a predictable result of allowing fresh airflow into the trailer to improve the air quality.
Regarding claim 11, Eubank and Hernandez as applied to claim 10 further teach the lower portion of the groove is formed to guide water out of the groove (Hernandez column 5 lines 52-56).
Regarding claim 16, Eubank and Hernandez as applied to claim 10 teach the lower portion of the groove has a curved shape (see Hernandez figure 3).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubank (US 3,855,814) and Hernandez et al. (US 11,262,001) as applied to claim10 above, and further in view of Koeber (US 2021/0215387 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Eubank and Hernandez as applied to claim 10 are silent regarding a shield covering an indent and opening in the inner panel.
However, Koeber teaches an interior vent system comprising a shield covering (Koeber 100) that matches an indent (see Koeber figure 2) to lie flush with a surface when installed. The shield further comprises a plurality of apertures (Koeber 124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Eubank and Hernandez’s ventilation system to incorporate Koeber’s teaching of a shield that lies flush within an indent to produce a predictable result of producing a flush interior surface for the vent to maximize useable interior space.
Regarding claim 13, Eubank, Hernandez, and Koeber as applied to claim 12 teach the apertures (Koeber 124) are positioned around the edges of the indent (see Koeber figure 2).
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubank (US 3,855,814) and Hernandez et al. (US 11,262,001) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Dinicolas (US 2010/0081371 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Eubank and Hernandez as applied to claim 10 are silent regarding the air inlet comprising a lid with apertures/opening for air intake.
However, Dinicolas teaches an air conditioner cover (Dinicolas 10) comprising a lid (Dinicolas 22) comprising apertures (see Dinicolas figure 1). The cover protects the air inlets of the air conditioning unit from debris.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Eubank and Hernandez’s ventilation system to incorporate Dinicolas’s teachings of an exterior lid with vent openings to produce a predictable result of protecting the ventilation system from debris.
Regarding claim 20, Eubank and Hernandez as applied to claim 10 are silent regarding the outer part of the groove being covered by a filter/net.
However, Dinicolas teaches an air conditioner cover (Dinicolas 10) comprising a lid (Dinicolas 22) comprising a grate (see Dinicolas figure 1). The cover and grate protect the air inlets of the air conditioning unit from debris. Examiner notes that the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a filter as “a porous article or mass (as of paper or sand) through which a gas or liquid is passed to separate out matter in suspension” and therefore the cover with a grate intended to protect an air inlet from debris is being interpreted as a filer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Eubank and Hernandez’s ventilation system to incorporate Dinicolas’s teachings of an exterior lid with a grate that functions as a filter to produce a predictable result of protecting the ventilation system from debris.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubank (US 3,855,814) and Hernandez et al. (US 11,262,001) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Forest et al. (US 2014/0250654 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Eubank and Hernandez as applied to claim 10 are silent regarding the inlet comprising a filter.
However, Forest teaches an air inlet (Forest 6) that comprises an air filter (Forest 12) to filter the air that enters a vehicle cabin through the inlet (see Forest figure 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Eubank and Hernandez’s ventilation system to incorporate Forest’s teachings of a filter in a ventilation system to produce a predictable result of cleaning the intake air to improve air quality.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubank (US 3,855,814) and Hernandez et al. (US 11,262,001) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Turner (US 4,750,782).
Regarding claim 19, Eubank and Hernandez as applied to claim 10 are silent regarding a spoiler device to be placed in front of the air inlet.
However, Turner teaches a spoiler device (Turner 1) intended to be placed in front of the opening of a sunroof (Turner 5) in the forward moving direction of a vehicle to prevent a region of low pressure that produces undesirable airflow through a sunroof (Turner column 1 lines 20-30). Examiner notes that while a sun roof and a ventilation system are different, both are openings on a surface of a vehicle that can benefit from a spoiler.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Eubank and Hernandez’s ventilation system to incorporate Turner’s teachings of a spoiler in front of an opening on a vehicle to produce a predictable result of preventing undesirable airflow through the opening.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Switzer et al. (US 2015/0087217 A1), and Koeber (US 2021/0215387 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Switzer teaches a ventilation device (Switzer 16) to be mounted in a side panel of a vehicle (Swizter [0003]) wherein the ventilation device comprises a frame (Switzer 20), an inner panel (see Switzer figure 4) and an outer panel (see Switzer figure 3). The ventilation device further comprises one or more essentially horizontal grooves (gaps between louvers 60) where a ventilation opening is formed in the upper part of each of the at least one groove (see Switzer figure 5) and wherein the lower portion of each groove is formed to guide water and dust away from the groove area (see Switzer figure 5).
Switzer is silent regarding a shield covering the inner side of the ventilation device.
However, Koeber teaches an interior vent system comprising a shield covering (Koeber 100) that matches an indent (see Koeber figure 2) to lie flush with a surface when installed. The shield further comprises a plurality of apertures (Koeber 124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Switzer’s ventilation system to incorporate Koeber’s teaching of a shield that lies flush within an indent to produce a predictable result of producing a flush interior surface for the vent to maximize useable interior space.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Current prior art of record fails to teach securing a shield to the outer shell by a screw as recited in claim 17 and further prior art is silent regarding spacing between the shield and the back side of the grooves as recited in claim 18.
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, 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