DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 5/6/2025, wherein claims 1, 4, 7 were amended, claims 2-3 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 4-20 are pending. Claims 9-20 were withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 7 states "wherein the vent media has a porosity of 50% to 80%" this is never stated in the as filed specification. There is no support for this statement. The specific ranges are discussed on page 11 of the present application. The number 80% is not present.
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) 1, 4-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyat (US 20190054821 A1).
With respect to claim 1, a vent assembly comprising: a housing defining a cavity (fig 8), a first end and a second end (fig 8), wherein the second end comprises a coupling structure (see note below), wherein the first end defines a window (204 interior) configured to be in fluid communication with the cavity, wherein the window has a window perimeter (212); a vent media (268) spanning a portion the cavity of the housing, wherein the vent media is breathable and forms a watertight seal (page 2 [0026], see rationale below) to the housing at a perimeter of the vent media; wherein the first end comprises a screen structure (217) within the window perimeter of the window comprising repeating structures defining open areas and wherein the screen structure defines: a first row (top row) of first open areas, at least a portion of the first open areas having a first area; a second row (below first row) of second open areas, at least a portion of the second open areas having a second area different from the first area; and a third row (below second row) of third open areas, at least a portion of the third open areas having a third area different from the first and second area. (see Response to Arguments below)
Boyat does not directly disclose a watertight seal. However on page 2 [0026], Boyat states “The second gas-permeable substrate 268 is generally configured to provide ingress protection from liquid and solid contaminants in the environment outside of the vent 200 to maintain cleanliness and purity within the reservoir and the vent 200.” The device of Boyat is intended to prevent liquid from exiting the reservoir (page 1 [0002]). Boyat teaches against the entry of water with regards to the vent media (item 268), although Boyat does not directly state “water tight”, the incorporation of a watertight seal would be obvious to one skilled in the art with respect to Boyats teachings. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vent media of Boyats invention to include a watertight seal as taught by Boyat in order to prevent the ingress of water.
Examiner Note: A “coupling structure” is not described. It can be said that there is a coupling structure between the vent media of the prior art and the second end.
PNG
media_image1.png
232
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
342
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the first open areas, second open areas, and third open areas are shaped as rectangles, circles, hexagons, or triangles. Although Boyat taught of rhombus shaped open areas, the use of a different shape such as rectangular or triangular, can be viewed as a change in shape and not novel under the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Both Boyat and the present invention use the screen structure as a means of filtration, using a specific shape for the open areas does not present any unforeseen benefit and is not significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of allowing filtration from Boyats invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
With respect to claim 5, Boyat discloses the vent assembly of claim 1, wherein the screen structure comprises a grid of divider elements comprising horizontal dividers and vertical dividers. Boyat teaches of a mesh that has both horizontal and vertical elements.
With respect to claim 6, Boyat discloses the vent assembly of claim 1, wherein the vent media is a membrane, wherein the membrane is welded to a membrane seat surface. Currently, these two items mate with each other and attach to one another (see below for “is welded” rejection).
Examiner Note: the limitation “is welded” is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by- process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
With respect to claim 8, Boyat discloses the vent assembly of claim 1, wherein the vent media and at least portions of the housing are formed by a 3D printing process.
Examiner Note: the limitation “are formed by a 3D printing process” is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by- process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyat (US 20190054821 A1) in view of Egashira (US 5262096 A).
With respect to claim 7, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the vent media has media porosity of 50% to 80% . Boyat on page 5 [0043] states “The second gas-permeable substrate 268 can be constructed of similar or different materials than the first gas-permeable substrate 218. The functions and material construction of the second gas-permeable substrate 268 are consistent with those of the second gas-permeable substrate described above with reference to FIGS. 1-5.” Further on page 2 [0024], it is stated “In some embodiments, the first substrate 118 has a breathable film such as a perforated film, porous film or microporous film.”
Boyat doesn’t directly state a porosity of 50% to 80%. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely gas filtration, Temus taught of example meshes with an 80% porosity (Col 8 reference example 2) and a mesh with a porosity of 50% (col 9 example 1). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porosity of Boyat to use mesh structures with a porosity of 50% or 80% ( or values in between) as taught by Temus in order to allow for optimal gas transfer while having liquid impermeability.
Examiner Note: Further the prior art in teaches of usage of a range from 50 to 95% (col 2 lines 40-49).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-6468332-B2 OR US-5515994-A OR US-7201287-B2 OR US-4756852-A OR US-11047508-B2 OR US-20120125936-A1 OR US-20200246729-A1 OR US-20190054821-A1 OR US-20200032924-A1 OR US-20210193981-A1
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
The phrasing “a first row of first open areas; at least a portion of the first open areas having a first area” can be broadly interpreted. For example, below an annotated figure 7 shows an interpretation of Boyat that meets the claimed limitation. Due to the term “a portion” one can selected a desired amount of adjacent open areas (in the case of Boyat one can still use the entire row). For “at least a portion of the open areas having a first area”, this can be considered a cumulation of the openings (open areas) from said portion having a first area (so the total amount of open areas for the selected portin). This can be repeated for each row. Since Boyats mesh is circular, a portion of a row can be selected or even the whole row. Each cumulation of open areas from each row is inherently different from each other.
PNG
media_image3.png
274
331
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735