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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed with the request for continued examination (RCE) on 04 November 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 2, 10, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23 & 46 have been amended, claims 29 & 43 have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 11-14, 18, 22, 24, 27, 28, 30-33 & 36-42 were cancelled in previous amendments. Thus, claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 15-17, 19-21, 23, 25, 26, 34, 35 & 44-46 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites “the mating flange” (lines 2, 5, 6), however, claim 2 uses the term “mating flange portion” rather than “mating flange.
Note: independent claim 21 and its dependents use the term “mating flange” rather than “mating flange portion”, but claim 10 depends from claim 2, not claim 21.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 23 is 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 23 recites “wherein the reinforcing seat is configurable into different sizes”, which renders the claim indefinite.
First, it is unclear if this is referring to a capability of the actual reinforcing seat which is included in the system (i.e., that a single reinforcing seat can be reconfigured to different sizes) or whether this is merely disclosing that a manufacturer may vary the size of the reinforcing seat selected to be used for a particular application.
As best understood in view of the specification (e.g., pg. 14, line 32 – pg. 15, line 6), the second meaning is likely intended (i.e., the seat provided can be made to a size corresponding to a desired structural integrity, but a particular seat is not necessarily configured to change sizes after manufacture) but this is not clearly set forth in the claim.
In view of the above, this limitation does not seem appropriate for an apparatus claim as it merely appears to provide a framework for a potential design modification (i.e. possible alternative sizes), and does not necessarily limit the claimed device itself. Rather, this type of subject matter appears to be more appropriate for a method of manufacture claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 15-17, 19, 20, 44 & 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0121569 A1 to Hermanson (hereafter Hermanson ‘569) in view of Kawamura (JP 2014-140849 A) and/or Dudley (US 4,803,881), and Weck et al. (US 2003/0192611 A1; hereafter Weck).
Examination Note: references to the written description of Kawamura refer to the corresponding portions of the English translation provided with this action.
Regarding claim 1, Hermanson ‘569 discloses an HVAC duct system comprising an elongate duct (e.g., spiral duct 560 as shown in figs. 16 & 17) comprising a metallic substrate (i.e., sheet metal; see paras. 5-7, para. 45, para. 47 & 48, etc.) formed into a cross-sectional shape (e.g., circular as shown in fig 17; however, see para. 45: such ducting may be “circular, oval, or other shaped”) along the entire length of the elongate duct (i.e., the duct of Hermanson ‘569 reasonably appears to be of consistent cross-sectional shape along its entire length, as would otherwise be inferred by a person having ordinary skill in the art, absent some explicit teaching of a change in cross-sectional shape over its length).
Hermanson ‘569 does not explicitly disclose the additional limitations wherein the metallic substrate is formed into an elliptical cross-sectional shape having an aspect ratio from 1:1.1 to 1:4 along the entire length of the duct, the elliptical cross-sectional shape defined by a center point and a major axis extending through the center point and two foci points located on the major axis and spaced from the center point and the sum of the distances from any point on the ellipse to the two foci points is constant; however, as noted, Hermanson ‘569 suggests that the ducting may be “circular, oval, or other shaped”.
Hermanson ‘569 also does not explicitly disclose the additional limitation wherein the cross-sectional size of the elongate duct is of a size that corresponds to a circular duct with a radius of from 6 to 60 inches prior to being formed into an elliptical cross-sectional shape.
Kawamura teaches (figs. 1-7) that a circular spiral duct D (i.e., having the shape of tool circular inlet at 11) may be formed into an elliptical duct (i.e., having the shape of the tool elliptical outlet at 12)(see figs. 5 & 6) in order to fit a duct of a required size in locations (e.g., ceilings) where a corresponding circular duct would not fit (see fig. 1; para. 15, etc.).
Kawamura explains that the resulting elliptical cross-section at 12 has substantially the same circumference as the initial circular cross-section at 11 (paras. 19 & 13).
Kawamura also explains that the elliptical cross-section can be provided along the entire length of the duct or, if desired, over a portion thereof (para. 33).
It is noted that Kawamura explicitly uses the term “ellipse” when describing the embodiment above and the corresponding shape (12) in at least figs. 3 & 5 is clearly shown to be a geometric ellipse (i.e., rather than a “flat-oval” or an informal piecewise “racetrack”-type oval). In fact, Kawamura separately discloses the use of a flat-oval type shape (“an oval shape…consisting of parallel straight lines and semicircular arcs…”) as a distinct, modified embodiment in fig. 8A, along with a rounded rectangle in fig. 8B (see para. 35).
Regarding the limitation wherein “the elliptical cross-sectional shape defined by a center point and a major axis extending through the center point and two foci points located on the major axis and spaced from the center point and the sum of the distances from any point on the ellipse to the two foci points is constant”, this is merely the geometric definition of an ellipse as would have been known to a person having ordinary skill in the art (see corresponding definition provided in the Declaration of Jeffrey A. Hermanson under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 filed 2/20/2025).
While the term, “ellipse” may sometimes be used (i.e., in other works) as an informal synonym for “oval”, the term “ellipse” when used in a technical context would ordinarily be understood to convey the more specific customary definition as in the Declaration.
In Kawamura, the reference uses the term “ellipse” in connection with corresponding figures which reasonably show a geometrically proper ellipse (i.e., an ellipse as would be expected when considering the formal definition). By contrast, Kawamura uses the term “oval shape” when describing the traditional “flat-oval” shape in the alternate embodiment of fig. 8A.
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand the term “ellipse” as used in Kawamura to be conveying its ordinary and customary technical meaning: i.e., a shape defined by a center point and a major axis extending through the center point and two foci points located on the major axis and spaced from the center point and the sum of the distances from any point on the ellipse to the two foci points is constant.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC duct system of Hermanson ‘569 such that the metallic substrate is formed into an elliptical cross-sectional shape (i.e., along the entire length of the elongate duct), the elliptical cross-sectional shape defined by a center point and a major axis extending through the center point and two foci points located on the major axis and spaced from the center point and the sum of the distances from any point on the ellipse to the two foci points is constant (i.e., a technically defined ellipse, rather than a mere oval), in view of the teachings of Kawamura, as the use of a known technique (i.e., forming a duct to have an elliptical cross-sectional shape, as in Kawamura) to improve a similar device (i.e., the HVAC duct system of Hermanson ‘569) in the same way (e.g., to provide ducts having a minor axis less than the equivalent round duct and a major axis greater than the equivalent round duct, to enable an appropriately sized duct to be installed in locations where an equivalently sized round duct would not fit, e.g., in ceilings with obstructions, as suggested by Kawamura).
To promote compact prosecution, an alternative teaching of the elliptical cross-sectional shape is provided below.
Dudley teaches (section II: “Background Art”) that heating and air conditioning installations (i.e. HVAC) in commercial buildings typically use conventional rectangular or square flat wall ducting for air flow, with the size chosen according to airflow design requirements, however, flat wall ducting requires greater surface area and wall thickness than cylindrical ducting, thus requiring more material than a such cylindrical ducting. However, while cylindrical ducting is cheaper and requires less material, “its cross-sectional shape limits its use in many applications where only rectangular or square ducting would fit”.
To overcome these issues, Dudley teaches an apparatus for stretching “ducting having a cylindrical cross-section into ducting having an oval or elliptical cross-section” (col. 1, lines 45-49). Figs. 2 & 4 depict a “pipe or duct 60” in an initial cylindrical configuration, fig. 5 shows the duct 60 with an elliptical cross-section, and figure 6 shows the duct with an oval (i.e., a flat oval) cross-section.
In context, Dudley clearly distinguishes between “elliptical” and “oval”; see col. 4, lines 6-9: “The increase of relative distance between mandrels 12 and 14… deforms the circular cross-section of pipe 60 to either an elliptical or oval cross-section” (see also col. 2, lines 1-2: “reforming the cross-section of the pipe from circular to elliptical or oval”). As Dudley does not provide a special definition for “ellipse”, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand the term as conveying its ordinary and customary technical meaning: i.e., a shape defined by a center point and a major axis extending through the center point and two foci points located on the major axis and spaced from the center point and the sum of the distances from any point on the ellipse to the two foci points is constant. Additionally, the elliptical cross-section shown in fig. 5 reasonably appears to be a proper ellipse (rather than an oval).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC duct system of Hermanson ‘569 such that the metallic substrate is formed into an elliptical cross-sectional shape (i.e., along the entire length of the elongate duct), the elliptical cross-sectional shape defined by a center point and a major axis extending through the center point and two foci points located on the major axis and spaced from the center point and the sum of the distances from any point on the ellipse to the two foci points is constant (i.e., a technically defined ellipse, rather than a mere oval), in view of the teachings of Dudley, as the use of a known technique (i.e., forming an HVAC duct to have an elliptical cross-sectional shape, as in Dudley) to improve a similar device (i.e., the HVAC duct system of Hermanson ‘569) in the same way (e.g., to provide ducts which may be formed using less material than rectangular / square ducting but which are not limited by the 1:1 aspect ratio of convention cylindrical ducting, as suggested by Dudley, thus enabling use in locations where a cylindrical duct may not fit [e.g., low-profile applications, etc.]).
While Kawamura and Dudley are each seen individually as teaching the use of the elliptical cross-sectional shape, it would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC duct system of Hermanson ‘569 such that the metallic substrate is formed into an elliptical cross-sectional shape (i.e., along the entire length of the elongate duct) as claimed, in view of the combined teachings of Kawamura and Dudley. In particular, as Dudley teaches that elliptical and oval ducts may use less material than rectangular ducts without being so limited by aspect ratio as cylindrical ducts, and Kawamura also teaches that elliptical ducts may be suitably used in such applications as an alternative design to flat oval and rectangular ducts, the combined teachings would have reasonably suggested to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an elliptically shaped duct would be a suitable alternative to such flat oval and rectangular ducts since such a design provides versatility of aspect ratio (as with rectangular and flat oval ducts) and, like oval ducts, may use less material than rectangular ducts.
Regarding the limitation wherein the elongate duct has an aspect ratio from 1:1.1 to 1:4, it is first noted that applicant’s specification does not appear to set forth any evidence of criticality or unexpected results attributed to the use of the claimed range. Rather, as set forth on pg. 11, lines 11-23, applicant’s specification appears to suggest that the range of 1:1.1 to 1:4 is merely an example.
Examination Note: in the Declaration of Jeffrey A. Hermanson under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 filed 2/20/2025, the inventor argues that the claimed range of 1:1.1 to 1:4 is “an important range for HVAC ducting having an elliptical cross-section”. The assertion that a claimed range is “important” is insufficient to overcome an obviousness rejection of a claimed range. Rather, applicant must provide objective evidence to demonstrate that the clamed range is critical to achieving an unexpected result commensurate in scope with the claimed range. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." [MPEP § 716.02(b)].See MPEP § 716.01(c), 716.02, and 706.02(a-d). To date, no such evidence has been provided to demonstrate the existence of an unexpected result particularly attributable to the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A), it has been generally held that where the difference between the prior art and a claimed invention involves only a change of form, proportions or degree, such a difference is unpatentable, even though such changes may produce better results than prior inventions [In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874)].
In the instant case, the only difference between the claimed invention and the combination of Hermanson ‘569 and Kawamura and/or Dudley above appears to be a difference in form or proportion and, in view of the above guidance, such a difference is unpatentable over the prior art, especially considering that applicant has not established any criticality for the claimed range. However, to promote compact prosecution, an additional teaching in view of Weck is provided below.
Weck teaches (fig. 3) a duct (i.e., a tube / hose) having an elliptical cross section along its length. Weck explains (para. 24): “It can be shown mathematically that tubes with elliptical cross-sections having ratios of major to minor axes lengths between 1.01 and approximately 2.1 have flexural moduli greater than tubes with circular cross-sections, for otherwise common properties, that is, wherein the tubes with elliptical and circular cross-sections have: (1) neutral center lines of the same length, (2) are made of the same material and (3) have walls of the same thickness. Tubes with elliptical cross-sections having ratios of major to minor axes lengths in excess of approximately 2.1 have flexural moduli less than tubes with circular cross-sections for otherwise common properties. It can also be shown mathematically that tubes having elliptical cross-sections have the greatest flexural modulus if the ratio of major to minor axes lengths of the neutral center line of such tubes is approximately 1.4. Tubes having elliptical cross-sections with neutral center lines having major to minor axes ratios of approximately 1.4 have a flexural modulus which is about 5.6 percent greater than the flexural modulus of circular cross-section tubes having the same properties.”.
As can be seen, Weck thus suggests an aspect ratio of 1:1.01 to 1:2.1, with a suggested value of 1:1.4.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC duct system of Hermanson ‘569, as otherwise modified above, such that the duct having an elliptical cross section (as claimed) has an aspect ratio of from 1:1.1 to 1:4 (e.g., an aspect ratio of 1:1.4, as suggested by Weck) along the entire length of the elongate duct, in view of the teachings of Weck, as Weck suggests that, mathematically, ducts with elliptical cross sections with aspect ratios in the range of 1:1.01 to 1:2.1 have flexural moduli greater than corresponding duct with circular cross-sections, with an aspect ratio of 1:1.4 providing the greatest flexural modulus.
Regarding the limitation wherein the cross-sectional size of the elongate duct is of a size that corresponds to a circular duct with a radius of from 6 to 60 inches prior to being formed into an elliptical cross-sectional shape, it is noted that Kawamura and Dudley each teaching forming the elliptical cross-sectional shape by deforming a circular duct with a radius.
Examination Note: US 2008/0134745 A1 to Hermanson (hereafter Hermanson ‘745), incorporated-by-reference in Hermanson ‘569 (para. 67), similarly discloses forming a rectangular duct by deforming a circular duct.
Dudley further teaches that “the size of the ducting is chosen according to the building airflow design specifications” (col. 1, lines 15-17; as is otherwise well-known in the art). Dudley also provides examples of possible ducts: “a twenty-eight inch diameter [i.e., 14 inch radius] cylindrical duct may be stretched to form the equivalent of a thirty-one inch by twelve inch rectangular duct” (col. 5, lines 16-19). As can be easily calculated, the circumference of a 14 inch diameter cylindrical duct (~88 inches) is approximately equal to that of a 31”x12” rectangular duct (~86 inches), generally confirming Dudley’s example; and a 14 inch radius falls with the claimed range of from 6 to 60 inches.
As previously noted, Kawamura also teaches that the elliptical cross-section (at 12) may have substantially the same circumference as the initial circular cross-section (at 11) (paras. 19 & 13).
In any event, a person having ordinary skill in the art of HVAC system design would certainly be familiar with the selection of an appropriate duct size for the application (i.e., selection according to building airflow design specification, as suggested by Dudley) and with the determination/calculation of an equivalent size of non-circular duct in order to achieve the design airflow with a non-circular duct (e.g., where a standard circular duct is impractical or undesirable due to space limitations / physical constraints, or for architectural reasons, etc.; as is already required when using rectangular and flat oval ducts), each of which is fundamental and routine in the field of HVAC system design.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the elliptical duct with a cross-sectional size that corresponds to a circular duct of any reasonably radius (prior to being formed into the elliptical cross-sectional shape) as may be required to according to the building airflow design specifications of a particular project (e.g., to achieve a design duct airflow at a design friction loss rate, etc.), including within the range of 6 to 60 inches (e.g., corresponding to a 14” radius circular duct, in view of Dudley, etc.), as a matter of routine HVAC duct engineering design.
See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 2, Hermanson ‘569 discloses the additional limitations wherein a flange connector (e.g., flange connector 955 in fig. 24B; see also 400 in figs. 10A/B, 470 in fig. 13, 564 in figs 16-17; 950 in 24A, 970 in fig 24E, etc.) is formed on one or both ends of the elongate duct (see below), wherein each flange connectors has a mating flange portion extending transversely to a length of the elongate duct (e.g., generally indicated at 956 in fig. 24B; radially transverse extending mating flange portions also shown, e.g., in each of figs. 10A/B, 13, 15-17, 24A, 24C-24E, etc.).
Regarding the limitation wherein a flange connector is formed on “one or both ends of the elongate duct”, one end is clearly shown in figs 16 & 17. Additionally, fig. 13 shows flange connectors formed on corresponding ends of adjacent ducts. See also para. 45: “The provided connectors include standing-seam connectors, flanged connectors, and ducting having a flanged end directly formed on the ducting (e.g., spiral ducting having a flanged end or ends).”.
In view of the above, a person of ordinary skill would also understand that a flange connector could be provided to both ends to connect a series of ducts, as is otherwise well known in the art.
Regarding the limitation wherein each flange connector has an elliptical cross-sectional shape corresponding to the cross-sectional shape of the elongate duct, as shown in, e.g., figs. 10A-10B, 17 & 18, Hermanson ‘569 depicts the flange connectors having a cross-sectional shape corresponding to the cross-sectional shape of the duct (i.e., both circular, as depicted). As noted, Hermanson ‘569 also discloses that “The connectors are particularly useful for circular, oval, and other shaped heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) ducting” (para. 45).
Furthermore, as shown in figs. 6A & 6B, Hermanson ‘569 discloses that a related connector geometry (i.e., a standing seam connector) can be shaped to correspond to the cross-section of the ducts for which it is intended to be used (e.g., circular in fig. 6A, flat oval in fig. 6B), and Hermanson ‘569 further explains that “it is to be understood that standing-seam connectors of other shapes, such as square or rectangular can also be produced” (para. 61).
See also para. 64: “The connectors provided herein are generally formed in a cylinder (i.e., a cylindrical radial cross-section), but techniques known to those of skill in the art can be used to deform the formed cylindrical connectors into ovals, squares, or rectangles.”.
As set forth in MPEP § 2141.03(I), "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
In view of the above, when the HVAC duct system of Hermanson ‘569 is modified as set forth for claim 1 above to have an elliptical cross-section, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the flange connectors at the ends of the elongate ducts to have an elliptical cross-section corresponding to the cross-sectional shape of the elongate duct, as Hermanson ‘569 reasonably suggests forming the connectors to have a shape corresponding to that of the duct (e.g. circular for circular ducts; oval for oval ducts, etc. ) and forming such a flange connector to have a cross-sectional shape corresponding to that of the duct to which it is attached, in general, is otherwise well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Hermanson ‘569 discloses the additional limitations wherein the mating flange portions comprise an outer perimeter, and a formed reinforcing seat extending along the outer perimeter of the mating flange portions, the reinforcing seat projecting laterally from the plane of the mating flange portion in the direction toward an opposite end of the elongate duct.
In particular, the flange connector embodiments shown in at least Figs. 9E, 15A-15C, 15F, and each of figs. 24C-24E reasonably appear to read on the claimed limitations wherein the mating flange portions comprise an outer perimeter, and a formed reinforcing seat extending along the outer perimeter of the mating flange portions, the reinforcing seat projecting laterally from the plane of the mating flange portion in the direction toward an opposite end of the elongate duct.
Regarding claim 10, Hermanson ‘569 discloses the additional limitations wherein the mating flange portion of each flange connector defines an outer perimeter (e.g., see at least figs. 7, 8D, 9E, 10A/B, 15A-15C, 15E, 15F, 16, 17, etc.); and wherein the HVAC duct system further comprises a closure band (475 in FIG. 13) extending around the outer perimeter of the mating flange of the flange connector of the elongate duct as well as a mating flange of a flange connector of an adjacent end of an adjacent duct for retaining the two flange connectors of the adjacent elongate ducts in face-to-face relationship to each other.
See para. 82: “A closure band 475, as are known to those of skill in the art, is illustrated in FIG. 13, and providing the force to form the seal.”.
Examination Note: to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that such a closure band is also known from, e.g., US 2015/0260426 to Hermanson [Hermanson ‘426]. See Figs. 49A & 49B therein.
Regarding claim 15, Hermanson ‘569 explicitly incorporates-by-reference the entire disclosure of US 2008/0134745 A1 to Hermanson (hereafter Hermanson ‘745) (see para. 67 of Hermanson ‘569).
Examination Note: as set forth in MPEP § 2163.07(b): “Instead of repeating some information contained in another document, an application may attempt to incorporate the content of another document or part thereof by reference to the document in the text of the specification. The information incorporated is as much a part of the application as filed as if the text was repeated in the application, and should be treated as part of the text of the application as filed.”.
Hermanson ‘745 is also generally directed to HVAC duct systems with flanged connectors, and teaches (para. 113) that ducting sections “may be interconnected by flanged connectors… such flanged connectors may be attached to the adjacent ends of adjacent ducting sections.”. Hermanson ‘745 continues (para. 113): “Further, such flanged connectors may be incorporated into other ducting components, for example, without limitation, elbows, tees, splices, collars, taps, reducers, bell mouths, end caps, and plugs. These are standard components utilized in ducting systems for heating/ventilating and air conditioning systems.”. See also published claim 19 of Hermanson ‘745.
Thus, Hermanson ‘569, via incorporation-by-reference of Hermanson ‘745, is also seen as disclosing the additional limitation wherein the system further comprises one or more fittings for connection to the elongate duct selected from the group consisting of: elbows; taps; lateral taps; angle taps; boot taps; T-fittings; reducers; dampers; slip connectors; offset connectors (e.g., at least elbows, taps, tees [T-fittings], reducers).
Regarding claim 16, Hermanson ‘569 discloses the additional limitation wherein the mating flange portions comprise a first section extending transversely outwardly from the end of the elongate duct and a second section doubled over the first section to extend transversely inwardly toward the elongate duct to form a mating face to a flanged connector of an adjacent duct.
In particular, the embodiments shown in at least Figs. 24A & 24B reasonably appear to read on the claimed limitations wherein the mating flange portions comprise a first section extending transversely outwardly from the end of the elongate duct and a second section (i.e., “full return 952” in fig. 24A, “radial section 956” of the return in fig. 24B; see paras. 91 & 92) doubled over the first section to extend transversely inwardly toward the elongate duct to form a mating face to a flanged connector of an adjacent duct.
Examination Note: Figs. 24A & 24B appear to depict substantially similar arrangements to Figs. 47 & 48 of the instant application, understood to correspond to the claimed subject matter here.
Regarding claims 17, 19 & 46, Hermanson ‘569 discloses (i.e., in the embodiment of Fig. 24B) the additional limitations wherein the second sections (956) of the mating flange portions defines an inner perimeter; and further comprising a return section (957) extending from the inner perimeter of the second section of the mating flange portions toward the elongate duct (as in claim 17), wherein the return section overlies an inside surface of the elongate duct (as in claim 19), and wherein the return section extends along an inside surface of the elongate duct (as in claim 46).
Examination Note: Fig. 24B appears to depict a substantially similar arrangement to that of Fig. 48 in the instant application, understood to correspond to the claimed subject matter here. “956” in Fig. 24B of Hermanson ‘569 appears to substantially correspond to “second section 512’ ” of instant Fig. 48, while “957” in Fig. 24B of Hermanson ‘569 appears to substantially correspond to “return portion 522” of instant Fig. 48.
Regarding claim 20, Hermanson ‘569 discloses the additional limitation wherein the substrate is composed of spiral lock seam ducting, longitudinal lock seam ducting or longitudinal welded seam ducting. In particular, Hermanson ‘569 discloses that the ducting may be formed from spiral lock seam ducting (e.g., para. 7). However, Hermanson ‘569 also suggests that longitudinal lock seam ducting is known in the art (see paras. 46 & 47; published claim 16).
Regarding claim 44, Hermanson ‘569 discloses the additional limitations wherein the reinforcing seat is of a cross-sectional shape selected from the group consisting of square, polygonal, oblong, rectangular, circular, partially circular, quarter-circular, semicircular, elliptical, oval, triangular, frusto-triangular, vee-shaped, arcuate, and tubular.
In particular, Hermanson ‘569 explains that “The flanged connectors can have a cross sectional shape as illustrated in FIG. 7. Many other cross-sectional shapes can be produced using the techniques disclosed. Some of these optional shapes are disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/952,907, published as U.S. Publication No. 2008/0134745 and WO 2008/073837, the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.” (para. 67).
Examination Note: as set forth in MPEP § 2163.07(b): “Instead of repeating some information contained in another document, an application may attempt to incorporate the content of another document or part thereof by reference to the document in the text of the specification. The information incorporated is as much a part of the application as filed as if the text was repeated in the application, and should be treated as part of the text of the application as filed.”.
In view of the above, Hermanson ‘569 explicitly incorporates the entirety of US 2008/0134745 A1 (hereafter Hermanson ‘745), whereby the disclosure of Hermanson ‘745 is seen as part of the disclosure of Hermanson ‘569.
Hermanson ‘745 discloses that a corresponding reinforcing seat may have a cross-sectional shape selected from the group consisting of square (fig. 53), polygonal (e.g., figs. 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, etc.), oblong (e.g., figs. 52, 55, 58, etc.), rectangular (fig. 53), circular (fig. 55), oval (fig. 58), triangular (figs. 52, 56, 59, 60), arcuate (e.g., figs. 55, 58, 61), and tubular (e.g., fig. 55). See also para. 133.
Thus, Hermanson ‘569, via incorporation by reference of Hermanson ‘745, is also seen as disclosing the additional limitation wherein the reinforcing seat is of a cross-sectional shape selected from the group consisting of square, polygonal, oblong, rectangular, circular, partially circular, quarter-circular, semicircular, elliptical, oval, triangular, frusto-triangular, vee-shaped, arcuate, and tubular (e.g., at least square, polygonal, oblong, rectangular, circular, oval, triangular, arcuate, and tubular).
Claims 3, 6, 7, 44 & 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermanson ‘569 in view of Kawamura and/or Dudley, and Weck as applied to claims 1 & 2 above, and further in view of US 2015/0260426 A1 to Hermanson (hereafter Hermanson ‘426).
Regarding claim 3, while Hermanson ‘569 is seen as reading on the limitations of claim 3 (as otherwise set forth above), to promote compact prosecution in the event that the reinforcing flange structure is not seen as being a “reinforcing seat”, an additional teaching is provided below.
Regarding claims 6 & 7, Hermanson ‘569 does not explicitly disclose the additional limitations wherein the system further comprises a reinforcing member held within the reinforcing seat (claim 6) or wherein the reinforcing member is shaped to correspond to the shape of the reinforcing seat (claim 7).
Hermanson ‘426 teaches (e.g., in figs. 20-24) various embodiments of flange connectors (50; i.e., 50S - 50W in figs. 20-24, respectively) formed at an end of an HVAC duct (52), each having a mating flange portion (56) extending transversely to a length of the duct, wherein the mating flange portions (56) comprising an outer perimeter, and a formed reinforcing seat (58; i.e., 58S – 58W) extending along the outer perimeter of the mating flange portions, the reinforcing seat projecting laterally from the plane of the mating flange portion in the direction toward an opposite end of the duct.
Hermanson ‘426 further teaches a reinforcing member (90; i.e., 90S – 90W) held within the reinforcing seat, wherein the reinforcing member is shaped to correspond to the shape of the reinforcing seat (e.g., rectangular in fig. 20, oval in fig. 21, right triangular in fig. 22, symmetrical triangular in fig. 23, frusto-triangular in fig. 24, etc.; see para. 62-64).
Hermanson ‘426 explains (para. 62) that the reinforcing seats are adapted to receive and capture said reinforcing member, which may be in for form of a solid metallic bead or similar, whereby said reinforcing member serves to “increase the section modulus of the flanged ring connector, thereby to improve its structural integrity, strength, and stiffness.”.
Finally, Hermanson ‘426 also suggests (para. 64) that “the reinforcing member can be composed of various materials, for instance, a high modulus metallic material such as steel or a steel alloy”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC duct system of Hermanson ‘569 such that the reinforcing structure extending along the outer perimeter of the mating flange portions and projecting laterally from the plane of the mating flange in the direction toward an opposite end of the elongate duct is formed as a reinforcing seat (i.e., configured to receive and capture a reinforcing member)(as in claim 3), wherein the HVAC duct system further comprises a reinforcing member held within the reinforcing seat (as in claim 6), and wherein the reinforcing member is shaped to correspond to the shape of the reinforcing seat (as in claim 7), in view of the teachings of Hermanson ‘426, in order to “increase the section modulus of the flanged ring connector (i.e., via the use of a high-modulus reinforcing member) thereby to improve its structural integrity, strength, and stiffness.”, as otherwise suggested by Hermanson ‘426.
The above modifications would have otherwise been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as the use of a known technique (i.e., forming a reinforcing hem/bend portion at the outer perimeter of a flange connector mating flange to be a reinforcing seat, and holding therein a reinforcing member having a shape corresponding to the shape of the reinforcing seat, as in Hermanson ‘426) to improve a similar device (i.e., the flange connectors of the HVAC duct system of Hermanson ‘569) in the same way (e.g., increasing the section modulus and thus the structural integrity, strength, and stiffness of the flange connectors, as above).
Regarding claim 44, while Hermanson ‘569 is seen as reading on the limitations of claim 44 (as otherwise set forth above), to promote compact prosecution, it is further noted that Hermanson ‘426 teaches that the reinforcing seat (58) is of a cross-sectional shape selected from the group consisting of square, polygonal, oblong, rectangular, circular, partially circular, quarter-circular, semicircular, elliptical, oval, triangular, frusto-triangular, vee-shaped, arcuate, and tubular.
In particular, Hermanson ‘426 shows reinforcing seats (50) and corresponding reinforcing members (90) which are rectangular (fig. 20), oval (fig. 21), triangular (figs. 22 & 23), and frusto-triangular (fig. 24), and further suggests (para. 64) that the reinforcing seat and reinforcing members could be circular, elliptical or “of shapes other than those illustrated or described above”.
Further, Hermanson ‘426 discloses (para. 8) that such seats can be “can be selected from various cross-sectional shapes, for example, square, polygonal, oblong, rectangular, circular, partially circular, quarter-circular, semicircular, elliptical, oval, triangular, frusto-triangular, and V-shaped”. See also published claim 19.
When modifying the system of Hermanson ‘569 in view of Hermanson ‘426 (as set forth for claims 3, 6 & 7 above) such that the reinforcing seat holds a reinforcing member, it would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the reinforcing seat with a cross-sectional shape selected from the group consisting of square, polygonal, oblong, rectangular, circular, partially circular, quarter-circular, semicircular, elliptical, oval, triangular, frusto-triangular, vee-shaped, arcuate, and tubular, in view of the explicit teaching of Hermanson ‘426 to utilize such cross-sectional shapes for reinforcing seats.
Regarding claim 45, Hermanson ‘426 further teaches (e.g., in figs. 20-24) that the reinforcing member (90; i.e., 90S – 90W) may be a solid (i.e., as shown in the figs; see para. 62: “may be in the form of solid metallic beads”), and may have a variety of shapes including triangular (figs. 22 & 23) (see para. 62-64).
As a result, when modifying the system of Hermanson ‘569 in view of Hermanson ‘426 (as set forth for claims 3, 6 & 7 above) such that the reinforcing seat holds a reinforcing member, it would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the reinforcing member in a shape selected from the group consisting of solid, tubular, hollow, partially hollow, arcuate, triangular, and right angular (e.g., solid or triangular, etc.), in view of the explicit teaching of Hermanson ‘426 to provide a reinforcing member in such shapes.
It is also noted that Hermanson ‘426 teaches other embodiments where the reinforcing member functions as a seal (e.g., figs. 1-19) and, in these instances, Hermanson ‘426 suggests that these members may be “of solid construction… or of hollow or semi-hollow construction” (para. 44).
Claims 21, 23, 25, 26, 34 & 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermanson ‘426 in view of Kawamura and/or Dudley.
Regarding claim 21, Hermanson ‘426 discloses a flanged ring connector (50; i.e., particularly, embodiments 50S - 50W as shown in figs. 20-24; see fig. 2 for context) to join adjacent ducts (52) in an HVAC system (see abstract), wherein the ducts are formed to have a cross section along their entire lengths (see para. 3: “HVAC ducting of circular, oval, square, rectangular, or other cross-sectional shapes”; para. 15: “The closed ring is shaped to match the shape of the HVAC ducting, and therefore can be round, oval, ovoid, square, rectangular, rectilinear, or triangular”; para. 45: “The duct 52 is illustrated as being of single-wall, circular construction. However, the duct can be of other cross-sectional shapes, including square, rectangular, oval, triangular, etc.”), the flanged ring connector comprising:
(a) a mating flange (56) defining a mating face (as shown; see also published claim 1: “a first mating flange defining a first mating face”), the mating flange defining an outer perimeter portion (i.e., further from the ducts 52; proximate seat 58) and an inner perimeter portion (proximate to the ducts 52)(see also published claim 1: “said first mating flange defining an outer perimeter portion and an inner perimeter portion”), and the mating flange being of a cross-sectional shape corresponding to the cross-sectional shape of the ducts (i.e., as shown in fig. 2, both the mating flange 56 and the ducts 52 are circular; see also para. 15: “The mating flange and seat are formed in and along the longitudinal strip. Thereafter, the…workpiece is formed into a closed ring configuration to match the cross-sectional shape of the HVAC ducting…. The closed ring is shaped to match the shape of the HVAC ducting and can therefore be round, oval, ovoid, square, rectangular, rectilinear, or triangular…”);
(b) an insertion flange (54) extending laterally from the inner perimeter portion of the mating flange, the insertion flange having an inside surface and an outside surface, the insertion flange in cross-section corresponding to the cross-sectional shape of the HVAC ducts (as shown), and the insertion flange fixedly attachable to the ducts (e.g., see para. 6, lines 6-7: “The first insertion flange is of sufficient length to allow fixed attachment to the HVAC duct”); and
(c) a formed reinforcing seat (50; e.g., 58S – 50W in figs. 20-24) extending around the outer perimeter of the mating flange (as shown in figs. 20-24) and projecting laterally from the mating flange in a direction that the insertion flange extends from the mating flange (as shown).
Hermanson ‘426 does not explicitly disclose the additional limitations wherein the ducts are elliptical in cross section along their entire lengths, the elliptical cross-sectional shape defined by a center point and a major axis extending through the center point and two foci points located on the major axis and spaced from the center point and the sum of the distances from any point on the ellipse to the two foci points is constant; wherein in cross-sectional size the ducts are of a size that corresponds to a circular duct with a radius of from 6 to 60 inches prior to being formed into an elliptical cross-sectional shape; and the mating flange being of an elliptical cross-sectional shape corresponding to the elliptical cross-sectional shape of the ducts. However, as noted above, Hermanson ‘426 suggests that the ducting may be of other cross-sectional shapes, including oval and ovoid, and teaches that the ring forming the mating flange should be shaped to match that of the duct.
Kawamura teaches (figs. 1-7) that a circular spiral duct D (i.e., having the shape of tool circular inlet at 11) may be formed into an elliptical duct (i.e., having the shape of the tool elliptical outlet at 12)(see figs. 5 & 6) in order to fit a duct of a required size in locations (e.g., ceilings) where a corresponding circular duct would not fit (see fig. 1; para. 15, etc.).
Kawamura explains that the resulting elliptical cross-section at 12 has substantially the same circumference as the initial circular cross-section at 11 (paras. 19 & 13).
Kawamura also explains that the elliptical cross-section can be provided along the entire length of the duct or, if desired, over a portion thereof (para. 33).
It is noted that Kawamura explicitly uses the term “ellipse” when describing the embodiment above and the corresponding shape (12) in at least figs. 3 & 5 is clearly shown to be a geometric ellipse (i.e., rather than a “flat-oval” or an informal piecewise “racetrack”-type oval). In fact, Kawamura separately discloses the use of a flat-oval type shape (“an oval shape…consisting of parallel straight lines and semicircular arcs…”) as a distinct, modified embodiment in fig. 8A, along with a rounded rectangle in fig. 8B (see para. 35).
Regarding the limitation wherein “the elliptical cross-sectional shape defined by a center point and a major axis extending through the center point and two foci points located on the major axis and spaced from the center point and the sum of the distances from any point on the ellipse to the two foci points is constant”, this is merely the geometric definition of an ellipse as would have been known to a person having ordinary skill in the art (see corresponding definition provided in the Declaration of Jeffrey A. Hermanson under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 filed 2/20/2025).
While the term, “ellipse” may sometimes be used (i.e., in other works) as an informal synonym for “oval”, the term “ellipse” when used in a technical context would ordinarily be understood to convey the more specific customary definition as in the Declaration.
In Kawamura, the reference uses the term “ellipse” in connection with corresponding figures which reasonably show a geometrically proper ellipse (i.e., an ellipse as would be expected when considering the formal definition). By contrast, Kawamura uses the term “oval shape” when describing the traditional “flat-oval” shape in the alternate embodiment of fig. 8A.
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand the term “ellipse” as used in Kawamura to be conveying its ordinary and customary technical meaning: i.e., a shape defined by a center point and a major axis extending through the center point and two foci points located on the major axis and spaced from the center point and the sum of the distances from any point on the ellipse to the two foci points is constant.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC duct system and associated flanged ring connector of Hermanson ‘426 such that the ducts are formed into an elliptical in cross section along their entire lengths, the elliptical cross-section defined by a center point and a major axis extending through the center point and two foci points located on the major axis and spaced from the center point and the sum of the distances from any point on the ellipse to the two foci points is constant (i.e., a technically defined ellipse, rather than a mere oval), in view of the teachings of Kawamura, as the use of a known technique (i.e., forming a duct to have an elliptical cross-sectional shape, as in Kawamura) to improve a similar device (i.e., the HVAC duct system of Hermanson ‘426) in the same way (e.g., to provide ducts having a minor axis less than the equivalent round duct and a major axis greater than the equivalent round duct, to enable an appropriately sized duct to be installed in locations where an equivalently sized round duct would not fit, e.g., in ceilings with obstructions, as suggested by Kawamura).
To promote compact prosecution, an alternative teaching of the elliptical cross-sectional shape is provided below.
Dudley teaches (section II: “Background Art”) that heating and air conditioning installations (i.e. HVAC) in commercial buildings typically use conventional rectangular or square flat wall ducting for air flow, with the size chosen according to airflow design requirements, however, flat wall ducting requires greater surface area and wall thickness than cylindrical ducting, thus requiring more material than a such cylindrical ducting. However, while cylindrical ducting is cheaper and requires less material, “its cross-sectional shape limits its use in many applications where only rectangular or square ducting would fit”.
To overcome these issues, Dudley teaches an apparatus for stretching “ducting having a cylindrical cross-section into ducting having an oval or elliptical cross-section” (col. 1, lines 45-49). Figs. 2 & 4 depict a “pipe or duct 60” in an initial cylindrical configuration, fig. 5 shows the duct 60 with an elliptical cross-section, and figure 6 shows the duct with an oval (i.e., a flat oval) cross-section.
In context, Dudley clearly distinguishes between “elliptical” and “oval”; see col. 4, lines 6-9: “The increase of relative distance between mandrels 12 and 14… deforms the circular cross-section of pipe 60 to either an elliptical or oval cross-section” (see also col. 2, lines 1-2: “reforming the cross-section of the pipe from circular to elliptical or oval”). As Dudley does not provide a special definition for “ellipse”, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand the term as conveying its ordinary and customary technical meaning: i.e., a shape defined by a center point and a major axis extending through the center point and two foci points located on the major axis and spaced from the center point and the sum of the distances from any point on the ellipse to the two foci points is constant. Additionally, the elliptical cross-section shown in fig. 5 reasonably appears to be a proper ellipse (rather than an oval).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC duct system and associated flanged ring connector of Hermanson ‘426 such that the ducts are formed into an elliptical in cross section along their entire lengths, the elliptical cross-section defined by a center point and a major axis extending through the center point and two foci points located on the major axis and spaced from the center point and the sum of the distances from any point on the ellipse to the two foci points is constant (i.e., a technically defined ellipse, rather than a mere oval), in view of the teachings of Dudley, as the use of a known technique (i.e., forming an HVAC duct to have an elliptical cross-sectional shape, as in Dudley) to improve a similar device (i.e., the HVAC duct system of Hermanson ‘426) in the same way (e.g., to provide ducts which may be formed using less material than rectangular / square ducting but which are not limited by the 1:1 aspect ratio of convention cylindrical ducting, as suggested by Dudley, thus enabling use in locations where a cylindrical duct may not fit [e.g., low-profile applications, etc.]).
While Kawamura and Dudley are each seen individually as teaching the use of the elliptical cross-sectional shape, it would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC duct system and associated flanged ring connector of Hermanson ‘426 such that the ducts are formed into an elliptical in cross-section (i.e., along the entire length of the elongate duct) as claimed, in view of the combined teachings of Kawamura and Dudley. In particular, as Dudley teaches that elliptical and oval ducts may use less material than rectangular ducts without being so limited by aspect ratio as cylindrical ducts, and Kawamura also teaches that elliptical ducts may be suitably used in such applications as an alternative design to flat oval and rectangular ducts, the combined teachings would have reasonably suggested to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an elliptically shaped duct would be a suitable alternative to such flat oval and rectangular ducts since such a design provides versatility of aspect ratio (as with rectangular and flat oval ducts) and, like oval ducts, may use less material than rectangular ducts.
When modified as above to have ducts of elliptical cross-section, it would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the flange ring connector of Hermanson ‘426 such that the mating flange is of an elliptical cross-sectional shape corresponding to the elliptical cross-sectional shape of the ducts, as Hermanson ‘426 explicitly discloses that the flange ring connector, including the mating flange, is shaped to match the shape of the corresponding ducts.
Regarding the limitation wherein in cross-sectional size the ducts are of a size that corresponds to a circular duct with a radius of from 6 to 60 inches prior to being formed into an elliptical cross-sectional shape, it is noted that Kawamura and Dudley each teaching forming the elliptical cross-sectional shape by deforming a circular duct with a radius.
Dudley further teaches that “the size of the ducting is chosen according to the building airflow design specifications” (col. 1, lines 15-17; as is otherwise well-known in the art). Dudley also provides examples of possible ducts: “a twenty-eight inch diameter [i.e., 14 inch radius] cylindrical duct may be stretched to form the equivalent of a thirty-one inch by twelve inch rectangular duct” (col. 5, lines 16-19). As can be easily calculated, the circumference of a 14 inch diameter cylindrical duct (~88 inches) is approximately equal to that of a 31”x12” rectangular duct (~86 inches), generally confirming Dudley’s example; and a 14 inch radius falls with the claimed range of from 6 to 60 inches.
As previously noted, Kawamura also teaches that the elliptical cross-section (at 12) may have substantially the same circumference as the initial circular cross-section (at 11) (paras. 19 & 13).
In any event, a person having ordinary skill in the art of HVAC system design would certainly be familiar with the selection of an appropriate duct size for the application (i.e., selection according to building airflow design specification, as suggested by Dudley) and with the determination/calculation of an equivalent size of non-circular duct in order to achieve the design airflow with a non-circular duct (e.g., where a standard circular duct is impractical or undesirable due to space limitations / physical constraints, or for architectural reasons, etc.; as is already required when using rectangular and flat oval ducts), each of which is fundamental and routine in the field of HVAC system design.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the elliptical duct with a cross-sectional size that corresponds to a circular duct of any reasonably radius (prior to being formed into the elliptical cross-sectional shape) as may be required to according to the building airflow design specifications of a particular project (e.g., to achieve a design duct airflow at a design friction loss rate, etc.), including within the range of 6 to 60 inches (e.g., corresponding to a 14” radius circular duct, in view of Dudley, etc.), as a matter of routine HVAC duct engineering design.
See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 23, as set forth in the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) above), it is not clear whether this claim actually serves to positively limit the claimed invention and, if it does, the intended scope of the claim is not clear.
However, to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that Hermanson ‘426 explains (para. 62): “It will be appreciated that the reinforcing member 90 serves to increase the section modulus of the flanged ring connector, thereby to improve its structural integrity, strength, and stiffness”. Thus, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art, the cross-sectional size of the reinforcement seat affects the section modulus of the flanged ring connector, and thus the structural integrity of the flanged ring connector.
As set forth in MPEP § 2141.03(I), the "hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art." Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the reinforcing seat into different sizes (i.e., depending on the particular strength / stiffness requirements of a particular application), as a matter of routine engineering design, in order to provide the desired degree of “structural integrity, strength, and stiffness” as otherwise suggested by Hermanson ‘426.
Regarding claim 25, the flanged ring connector of Hermanson ‘426 reads on the additional limitation wherein the mating (56) and insertion (54) flanges comprise an angle ring configuration (i.e., as can be seen is fig. 2 and otherwise understood from at least figs. 20-24, the mating and insertion flange collectively define an angle ring configuration).
Regarding claim 26, Hermanson ‘426 further discloses that the flanged ring connector (50) may comprise a reinforcing member (90; 90S – 90W in figs. 20-24) disposed within the reinforcing seat (58) to increase the structural integrity of the flanged ring connector (para. 62).
Regarding claim 34, Hermanson ‘426 discloses the additional limitation wherein the reinforcing seat (58) is of a cross-sectional shape selected from the group consisting of square, polygonal, oblong, rectangular, circular, partially circular, quarter-circular, semicircular, elliptical, oval, triangular, frusto-triangular, vee-shaped, arcuate, and tubular.
In particular, Hermanson ‘426 shows reinforcing seats (50) and corresponding reinforcing members (90) which are rectangular (fig. 20), oval (fig. 21), triangular (figs. 22 & 23), and frusto-triangular (fig. 24), and further suggests (para. 64) that the reinforcing seat and reinforcing members could be circular, elliptical or “of shapes other than those illustrated or described above”.
Further, Hermanson ‘426 discloses (para. 8) that such seats can be “can be selected from various cross-sectional shapes, for example, square, polygonal, oblong, rectangular, circular, partially circular, quarter-circular, semicircular, elliptical, oval, triangular, frusto-triangular, and V-shaped”. See also published claim 19.
Regarding claim 35, Hermanson ‘426 further discloses that the flanged ring connector (50) may comprise a reinforcing member (90; 90S – 90W in figs. 20-24) disposed within the reinforcing seat (58) to increase the structural integrity of the flanged ring connector (para. 62).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 November 2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding applicant’s arguments concerning the Socha reference, that Socha does not provide “any definition of “ellipse” whatsoever”, and that Socha “pertains to small oval tubes extending through the hollow interior of gas turbine vanes”, as explained in the previous office action, these arguments are not found to be persuasive. The detailed responses set forth in the previous action remain pertinent to these arguments and, for brevity, they are not repeated here.
However, the updated search performed for this action revealed additional prior art references, including Kawamura (JP 2014-140849 A), which also teaches forming a circular duct into an elliptical duct and suggests the use of such elliptical ducts for applications where round ducts may otherwise be obstructed (e.g., within ceilings). To promote compact prosecution on the issues, the grounds of rejection in this action have been amended to include teachings of Kawamura.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that the disclosure of an elliptical duct (fig. 5) in Dudley merely shows an intermediate step in making the flat oval duct (of fig. 6), this argument is not found to be persuasive.
Dudley clearly states that the circular duct may be reformed into “either an elliptical or oval cross-section” (col. 4, lines 6-9; see also col. 2, lines 1-2: “reforming the cross-section of the pipe from circular to elliptical or oval”). Dudley described fig. 5 as showing an “elliptical” duct, and fig. 6 as showing an “oval” duct. Thus, in context, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that either form could be used: the ellipse is not merely an intermediate step.
Furthermore, as set forth in MPEP § 2123(I), "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Finally, it is noted that the newly cited Kawamura (JP 2014-140849 A) clearly discloses the use of an elliptical duct (i.e., figs. 1-7) and, separately, discloses flat oval and rectangular ducts as alternative duct shapes. In view of Kawamura, one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that elliptical ducts (such as that taught by Dudley) are usable as an end product, and are not merely an intermediate product to be used when forming a flat oval duct.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Richard K. Durden/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753