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 & 3-11 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 & 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE9318222U1 to Stiebel.
A) As per Claim 1, Stiebel teaches an installation device configured to provide a sealed air exhaust via a hinged window (Stiebel: Figure 1), the device comprising a rectangular part (Stiebel: Figure 1, Item 7) comprising a hole (Stiebel: Figure 1, Items 5 & 6) and at least one connector configured to secure the rectangular part to the frame of a windowpane of said hinged window in a position where the rectangular part covers a rectangular gap formed opposite the hinges of the hinged window when the hinged window is in a partly open position (Stiebel: Paragraph 0013, multiple springs and clamps).
a first connector is provided at the top section of the rectangular part and a second connector is provided at the bottom part of the rectangular part (Stiebel: Paragraph 0013, multiple springs and clamps).
C) As per Claim 3, Stiebel teaches that the connectors are formed by clamps (Stiebel: Paragraph 0013, multiple springs and clamps).
D) As per Claim 4, Stiebel teaches that the rectangular part comprises a main part and a slidable part configured to slide in the main part such that the rectangular part has a variable length (Stiebel: Paragraph 0015).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiebel in view of US Patent Publication Number 2016/0363330 A1 to Kim.
A) As per Claim 5, Stiebel teaches all the limitations except an extension part connectable to the main part such that the main part is made longer.
However, Kim teaches an extension part connectable to the main part such that the main part is made longer (Kim: Figure 1, Items 52, 54 & 56).
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 Stiebel by adding an extension part, as taught by Kim, 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 Stiebel with these aforementioned teachings of Kim with the motivation of making the range of window sizes larger that are compatible with the device.
Claim(s) 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiebel in view of EP2199525 A2 to Keyace.
A) As per Claim 6, Stiebel teaches all the limitations except an elastic triangle fabric configured to cover a triangular gap formed between the top or bottom side of the windowpane and the window frame of a partly opened hinged window.
However, Keyace teaches an elastic triangle fabric configured to cover a triangular gap formed between the top or bottom side of the windowpane and the window frame of a partly opened hinged window (Keyace: Figure 5, Items 22a).
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 Stiebel by having an elastic triangle, as taught by Keyace, 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 Stiebel with these aforementioned teachings of Keyace with the motivation of being able to cover a larger range of opening angles.
B) As per Claim 7, Stiebel in view of Keyace teaches that the triangle fabric is elastic in itself (Keyace: Figure 5, Items 22a).
C) As per Claim 8, Stiebel in view of Keyace teaches that the triangle fabric is provided with an elastic band along the longer sides of the triangle fabric (Keyace: Figure 5, Items 22a).
D) As per Claim 9, Stiebel in view of Keyace teaches that the tip of the elastic triangle fabric is provided with a fastener (Keyace: Paragraph 0032, hook and eye fastener extend all the way around including tip of triangle).
E) As per Claim 10, Stiebel in view of Keyace teaches that the fastener is a hook (Keyace: Paragraph 0032, hook and eye fastener extend all the way around including tip of triangle).
F) As per Claim 11, Stiebel teaches all the limitations except a strap for locking the window pane in a position where the width of the rectangular gap of a partly opened window corresponds to the width of the rectangular part.
However, Keyace teaches a strap for locking the window pane in a position where the width of the rectangular gap of a partly opened window corresponds to the width of the rectangular part (Keyace: Figure 5, Item 100).
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 Stiebel by adding a strap, as taught by Keyace, 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 Stiebel with these aforementioned teachings of Keyace with the motivation of preventing the window from opening too far.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A) The Applicant asserts that Stiebel does not teach the connectors at the top and bottom parts of the rectangular part. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. These terms are so broad that any two clamps/connectors could be said to be at a top section and at a bottom part, as there is no distinction as to where the boundary of these sections is.
B) The Applicant asserts that the Keyace does not teach elastic triangle fabric. The Examiner notes that the pleated structure of Item 22a does elastically expand and contract to form different sized triangles to fill the holes in the top and bottom of the window opening.
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 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762