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 Arguments
After further search and consideration of applicant’s arguments new rejections have been written in view of Schofel (US 2021/0018196 A1) which teaches an exhaust vent comprising a tubular body comprising a flange that rests against the underside of a roof deck.
Applicant has argued that Oddy’s flange 110 does not read upon the claimed flange due to the extension 116 from which the flange extends. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. The claim limitation as written requires “a flange extends around a periphery of the proximal end perpendicularly to the hollow tube” and therefore has not excluded the existence of the extension 116 between the flange and the hollow tube. Amendment to clarify the flange is directly connected to the hollow tube would distinguish over Examiner’s current rejection.
Applicant has further argued that McIver’s teachings of a vent sealing device differ from the applicant’s claimed sealably fastened cap because McIver’s sealing device seals a vent to a roof and not sealing a tube end against liquid intrusion. Examiner disagrees, the current claim language is silent regarding liquid intrusion and merely recites “cap configured to removably and sealably fasten to the mouth”. The claim language does not require preventing liquid intrusion as asserted in applicant’s arguments and further McIver clearly teaches a watertight seal (McIver [0027]) between a cap and a tube as required by applicant’s claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 , and 20 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation "a mouth upstanding from the proximal end of the tube" is unclear. It is unclear how a mouth which forms the end of the tube can be upstanding from the end of the tube. 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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 10-14, and 20 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.
Independent claims 1, 10, and 20 each recite the limitation “the flange is planar and configured to rest against an underneath of the roof deck of the exhaust vent cap assembly is installed”. The term “the roof deck” lacks antecedent basis within the claims and it is further unclear from the claim language if the recited roof deck is part of the claimed exhaust vent cap assembly or not. In applying art, the limitation has been interpreted as “the flange is planar and configured to rest against an underneath of a roof deck in which the exhaust vent cap assembly is installed”.
Claims 2-5, and 9 depend upon claim 1 and are rejected under 112(b) for the same reasons.
Claims 11-14 depend upon claim 10 and are rejected under 112(b) for the same reasons.
Claim 20 is further indefinite due to the use of the conflicting prepositional phrases “consisting of” found in the preamble and “comprising” in the second line of the claim. It is unclear how the claimed exhaust vent cap assembly can consist of only the recited elements of the claim while the claimed tubular body which is part of the exhaust vent cap assembly could comprise further components. In applying art the limitations have both been interpreted as comprising.
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) 1-5, 10-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oddy (US 2019/0249439 A1) in view of McIver (US 2014/0364050 A1) and Schofel (US 2021/0018196 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oddy discloses an exhaust vent cap assembly comprising a tubular body (Oddy 134), the tubular body comprising: a hollow tube (Oddy 134) having a proximal end and a distal end (see Oddy figure 3), a flange (Oddy 110) extends around a periphery of the proximal end perpendicularly to the hollow tube (see Oddy figure 4B), and a mouth (end of the tube extending above extension 116, see figure 4A); and a cap (Oddy 150) configured to sealably fasten to the mouth (Oddy [0025]). Examiner notes that a fastening mechanism between the cap and mouth is not discussed but must be present for the cap assembly to function.
Oddy is silent regarding the diameter of the cap and mouth, and the flange being configured to rest against an underneath of a roof deck.
However, McIver teaches a vent sealing device and system comprising a cap (McIver 40) configured to seal a tube (McIver 20, wherein the diameters of the cap and tube are the same to provide a watertight seal (McIver [0027]) wherein the components are removeably attached utilizing various means such as screws, compression fittings, or magnetic elements (McIver [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oddy’s exhaust vent cap assembly to incorporate McIver’s teachings of using the same diameter cap and tube to produce a water tight seal between the two to prevent water entry and to further incorporate McIver’s teaching of removeably fastening the cap and tube together utilizing means such as screws, compression fittings, or magnetic elements to allow easy assembly and disassembly.
Further, Schofel teaches an exhaust vent system (Schofel 10) comprising a tubular body (Schofel 36) having a flange (Schofel 22) that is planar and is configured to rest against an underneath of a roof deck (see Schofel figure 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oddy’s exhaust vent cap assembly to incorporate Schofel’s teachings of the tubular body and flange being installed on the underneath of the roof deck to produce a predictable result of sealing the underside of the roof deck to prevent water entry and allow installation of the interior portion of the vent system prior to completion of the exterior roof.
Regarding claim 2, Examiner notes that the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines mechanically as “of or relating to machinery or tools”. Therefore, in applying art Examiner has interpreted the limitation of “mechanically attached” as a product by process limitation that merely requires the components to be attached. Therefore, Oddy, McIver, and Schofel as applied to claim 1 read upon the limitations.
Regarding claim 3, Examiner notes that the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines mechanically as “of or relating to machinery or tools”. Therefore, in applying art Examiner has interpreted the limitation of “mechanically attached” as a product by process limitation that merely requires the components to be attached. Therefore, Oddy, McIver, and Schofel as applied to claim 1 read upon the limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Examiner notes that the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines mechanically as “of or relating to machinery or tools”. Therefore, in applying art Examiner has interpreted the limitation of “mechanically attached” as a product by process limitation that merely requires the components to be attached. Therefore, Oddy, McIver, and Schofel as applied to claim 1 read upon the limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Oddy and McIver as applied to claim 1 teach the hollow tube, the mouth, and the flange are integrally formed (see Oddy figures 2-4).
Regarding claim 10, Oddy discloses an exhaust vent cap assembly comprising a tubular body (Oddy 134), the tubular body comprising: a hollow tube (Oddy 134) having a proximal end and a distal end (see Oddy figure 3), a flange (Oddy 110) extends around a periphery of the proximal end perpendicularly to the hollow tube (see Oddy figure 4B), and a mouth (end of the tube extending above extension 116, see figure 4A); and a cap (Oddy 150) configured to sealably fasten to the mouth (Oddy [0025]). Examiner notes that a fastening mechanism between the cap and mouth is not discussed but must be present for the cap assembly to function.
Oddy is silent regarding diameters of the cap and mouth; a duct being coupled to the distal end of the tube and the flange being configured to rest against an underneath of a roof deck.
However, McIver teaches a vent sealing device and system comprising a cap (McIver 40) configured to seal a tube (McIver 20, wherein the diameters of the cap and tube are the same to provide a watertight seal (McIver [0027]) wherein the components are removeably attached utilizing various means such as screws, compression fittings, or magnetic elements (McIver [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oddy’s exhaust vent cap assembly to incorporate McIver’s teachings of using the same diameter cap and tube to produce a water tight seal between the two to prevent water entry and to further incorporate McIver’s teaching of removeably fastening the cap and tube together utilizing means such as screws, compression fittings, or magnetic elements to allow easy assembly and disassembly.
Further, Schofel teaches an exhaust vent system (Schofel 10) comprising a tubular body (Schofel 36) having a flange (Schofel 22) that is planar and is configured to rest against an underneath of a roof deck (see Schofel figure 10) and further teaches the distal end of the proximal tube is connected to a duct from an exhaust fan (Schofel [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oddy’s exhaust vent cap assembly to incorporate Schofel’s teachings of the tubular body and flange being installed on the underneath of the roof deck to produce a predictable result of sealing the underside of the roof deck to prevent water entry and allow installation of the interior portion of the vent system prior to completion of the exterior roof and Schofel’s teachings of connecting a duct from an exhaust fan to the tubular body to produce a predictable result of allowing forced ventilation of an interior room of the building.
Regarding claim 11, Examiner notes that the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines mechanically as “of or relating to machinery or tools”. Therefore, in applying art Examiner has interpreted the limitation of “mechanically attached” as a product by process limitation that merely requires the components to be attached. Therefore, Oddy, McIver, and Schofel as applied to claim 10 read upon the limitations.
Regarding claim 12, Examiner notes that the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines mechanically as “of or relating to machinery or tools”. Therefore, in applying art Examiner has interpreted the limitation of “mechanically attached” as a product by process limitation that merely requires the components to be attached. Therefore, Oddy, McIver, and Schofel as applied to claim 10 read upon the limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Examiner notes that the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines mechanically as “of or relating to machinery or tools”. Therefore, in applying art Examiner has interpreted the limitation of “mechanically attached” as a product by process limitation that merely requires the components to be attached. Therefore, Oddy, McIver, and Schofel as applied to claim 10 read upon the limitations.
Regarding claim 14, Examiner notes that the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines mechanically as “of or relating to machinery or tools”. Therefore, in applying art Examiner has interpreted the limitation of “mechanically attached” as a product by process limitation that merely requires the components to be attached. Therefore, Oddy, McIver, and Schofel as applied to claim 10 read upon the limitations.
Regarding claim 20, Oddy discloses an exhaust vent cap assembly comprising a tubular body (Oddy 134), the tubular body comprising: a hollow tube (Oddy 134) having a proximal end and a distal end (see Oddy figure 3), a flange (Oddy 110) extends around a periphery of the proximal end perpendicularly to the hollow tube (see Oddy figure 4B), and a mouth (end of the tube extending above extension 116, see figure 4A); and a cap (Oddy 150) configured to sealably fasten to the mouth (Oddy [0025]). Examiner notes that a fastening mechanism between the cap and mouth is not discussed but must be present for the cap assembly to function. Examiner notes that Oddy discloses an exterior cover 140 that is a separate component from the rest of the exhaust cap and as such is not interpreted as being part of the claimed exhaust vent cap assembly.
Oddy is silent regarding the diameter of the cap and mouth, and the flange being configured to rest against an underneath of a roof deck.
However, McIver teaches a vent sealing device and system comprising a cap (McIver 40) configured to seal a tube (McIver 20, wherein the diameters of the cap and tube are the same to provide a watertight seal (McIver [0027]) wherein the components are removeably attached utilizing various means such as screws, compression fittings, or magnetic elements (McIver [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oddy’s exhaust vent cap assembly to incorporate McIver’s teachings of using the same diameter cap and tube to produce a water tight seal between the two to prevent water entry and to further incorporate McIver’s teaching of removeably fastening the cap and tube together utilizing means such as screws, compression fittings, or magnetic elements to allow easy assembly and disassembly.
Further, Schofel teaches an exhaust vent system (Schofel 10) comprising a tubular body (Schofel 36) having a flange (Schofel 22) that is planar and is configured to rest against an underneath of a roof deck (see Schofel figure 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oddy’s exhaust vent cap assembly to incorporate Schofel’s teachings of the tubular body and flange being installed on the underneath of the roof deck to produce a predictable result of sealing the underside of the roof deck to prevent water entry and allow installation of the interior portion of the vent system prior to completion of the exterior roof.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oddy (US 2019/0249439 A1), McIver (US 2014/0364050 A1), and Schofel (US 2021/0018196 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paquette (US 5,568,947).
Regarding claim 9, Oddy, McIver, and Schofel as applied to claim 1 are silent regarding how the cap and the mouth are fitted together.
However, Paquette teaches an exhaust vent cap assembly comprising a tube (Paquette 20)and a cap (Paquette 34) coupled together by a friction fit nipple (Paquette 40) (see Paquette column 3 lines 58-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oddy’s exhaust vent cap to incorporate Paquette’s teachings of a friction fit between the cap and tube to produce a predictable result of allowing easy tool free assembly and disassembly of the assembly.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oddy (US 2019/0249439 A1), McIver (US 2014/0364050 A1), and Schofel (US 2021/0018196 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Paquette (US 5,568,947).
Regarding claim 18, Oddy, McIver, and Schofel as applied to claim 10 are silent regarding how the cap and the mouth are fitted together.
However, Paquette teaches an exhaust vent cap assembly comprising a tube (Paquette 20)and a cap (Paquette 34) coupled together by a friction fit nipple (Paquette 40) (see Paquette column 3 lines 58-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oddy’s exhaust vent cap to incorporate Paquette’s teachings of a friction fit between the cap and tube to produce a predictable result of allowing easy tool free assembly and disassembly of the assembly.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oddy (US 2019/0249439 A1), McIver (US 2014/0364050 A1), and Schofel (US 2021/0018196 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gretz (US 11,050,230 B1).
Regarding claim 19, Oddy, McIver, and Schofel as applied to claim 1 is silent regarding the use of sealed knockouts on the flange.
However, in the related field of mounting plates for electrical devices Gretz discloses a mounting plate (Gretz 24) that comprises a plurality of knockouts (Gretz 44) that can be used for providing access through the mounting plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oddy’s exhaust vent cap assembly by applying Gretz’s teachings of knockouts for access on a mounting plate to Oddy’s mounting flange to produce a predictable result of allowing easier access through the flange.
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 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