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
Applicant’s amendment filed on 09/04/2025 has been considered and a new art rejection has been written in view of Brown (US 2012/0055104 A1).
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.
Claims 11 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. Claims 1, 10, and 15 each recite the limitation "wherein the fan is a direct current coaxial fan operable at a voltage of less than 12 volts to output airflow at a rate of at least 10 CFM". The specification provides support for the fan being operable at less than 12 volts and outputting airflow at a rate of at .
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, and 3-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grubka (US 2009/0311958 A1) in view of Brown (US 2012/0055104 A1) and McIntosh (US 2009/0078332 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Grubka teaches an attic ventilation system (Grubka 10) comprising:
A plurality of rafters (Grubka 44) supporting a roof structure (Grubka 18) under which an attic space (Grubka 16) is defined (see Grubka figure 1);
An overhang (see Grubka figure 1) extending outward from a wall (Grubka 20) below the roof structure (see Grubka figure 1);
A soffit (Grubka 52) defining a soffit opening (Grubka 57), the soffit positioned under the overhang (see Grubka figure 1);
A trim ring (outer edge of vent 64) surrounding the soffit opening (see Grubka figure 1);
A flexible tube (Grubka 84, see paragraph [0036] that describes the extension portion as flexible) including a proximal end, a central portion, and a distal end (Examiner notes that Grubka figure 2 depicts the entire flow conduit 66 as one piece but the specification describes in paragraph [0036] an embodiment where the extension portion 84 is a separate segment that is flexible and will inherently have two ends and a central portion), the proximal end joined with the soffit (joined by transition portion 82) and in fluid communication with the soffit opening (see Grubka figure 1), the central portion flexibly bent to extend over the wall (see Grubka figure 1) and extending upward adjacent a rafter (Grubka [0035] and figure 1) of the plurality of rafters; and
An exhaust fan (Grubka 60) to exhaust air from the attic space and drawn air into the attic space through the proximal end of the tube;
Wherein the attic space is bounded by an insulation layer (Grubka 40) below the plurality of rafters (see Grubka figure 1)
Wherein the flexible tube is supported at least partially by the insulation layer below the fan (see Grubka figure 1, examiner notes the tube passes through the insulation and will therefore be supported at least partially by the insulation layer.
Grubka is silent regarding a first band fastened to the rafter and supporting the central portion in an upwardly angled orientation, the fan being joined to the tube and supported by a second band, the fan’s voltage and airflow rate, and positive pressure inside the attic space, and the height of the ventilation system above the insulation.
However, Brown teaches an attic ventilation system (see Brown figure 1) comprising a flexible tube (Brown 2) including a proximal end in fluid communication with a soffit opening (see Brown figure 1), and a distal end joined to a fan (Brown 3), wherein the fan is a direct current coaxial fan (Brown [0016] and figure 2) operable at less than 12 volts (Brown [0016]) to output airflow at a rate of at least 10 CFM (Brown [0016]) that is configured to provide positive pressure (Brown [0006]) within the attic space and exhaust air through a primary vent (see Brown figure 1) on the roof to force heated air out of the attic and also reduce losses of air conditioned air from the living space. Brown further teaches a band attached to the motor for securing the motor to a rafter (see Brown figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Grubka’s system to utilize Brown’s teachings of positive pressure fan connected to the flexible tube and providing at least 10 CFM of airflow at less than 12 volts and secured by a band to produce a predictable result of producing positive pressure to limit losses of conditioned interior air thereby improving overall system efficiency and safely securing the fan.
Further, in the related field of duct supporting apparatus, McIntosh teaches a duct supporting apparatus (McIntosh 100) comprising a saddle (McIntosh 101) and a band (McIntosh 104) for securing a duct to a rafter (McIntosh 202).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Grubka’s system to utilize McIntosh’s teaching of a saddle and band for supporting a duct to produce a predictable result of supporting the middle section of the flexible tube.
Grubka is silent regarding the exact height above the insulation layer.
However, Grubka teaches the end of the flexible tube is spaced apart from the insulation (Grubka [0034]) to provide improved flow of air through the attic ventilation system and a court has held that it is not inventive to discover an optimum range within the prior art conditions. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Grubka’s teachings of spacing an aperture above the insulation that height of the air outlet is a results effective variable that effects air flow rate and would have selected an optimal height for the vent outlet and fan of at least two feet above the insulation layer to provide improved airflow.
Regarding claim 3, Grubka, Brown, and McIntosh as applied to claim 1 teach the roof structure (Grubka 18) having an unspecified run distance and the vent’s flexible tube (Grubka 84) with a run distance of 3-6 feet (Grubka [0034]). Grubka further teaches that spacing the outlet of the flexible tube from the insulation improves airflow (Grubka [0034)).
Grubka, Brown, and McIntosh as applied to claim 1 are silent regarding the exact run length of the roof and is therefore silent regarding the exact ratio of fan location to the roof run length.
However, a court has held that it is not inventive to discover an optimum range within the prior art conditions. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Grubka’s teachings of Spacing an aperture above the insulation that run length is a results effective variable that effects air flow rate and would have selected an optimal run length for the fan location of 1/3 of the roof run length.
Regarding claim 4, Grubka, Brown, and McIntosh as applied to claim 1 are silent regarding the use of a solar panel.
However, Brown further teaches it’s attic ventilation system comprises a solar panel (Brown 5) mounted to a roof structure (see Brown figure 1), a power cord (Brown 4) coupling the solar panel to the fan, and the solar panel is located at least 1/3 the run distance from the overhang (see Brown figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Grubka’s system with Brown’s teachings of utilizing a solar panel for powering the ventilation system to produce a predictable result of powering the fan utilizing solar energy to avoid increasing the household energy costs.
Regarding claim 5, Grubka, Brown, and McIntosh as applied to claim 1 teach the trim ring (outer edge of Grubka 64) will conceal the cut edge of the soffit (see Grubka figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Grubka, Brown, and McIntosh as applied to claim 5 teach a screen (Grubka [0029]) disposed adjacent the soffit opening and the trim ring.
Regarding claim 7, Grubka, Brown, and McIntosh as applied to claim 6 teach the central portion is less than 6 feet long (Grubka [0034]), the fan is mounted to the end of the flexible tube (see Brown figure 2) and the end of the flexible tube is located between adjacent rafters (Grubka [0035]).
Regarding claim 8, Grubka, Brown, and McIntosh as applied to claim 1 teach the soffit opening (Grubka 57) is located on a first side of the wall with the overhang (see Grubka figure 1) and the fan is located at the end of the flexible tube (Grubka 84) located on the second die of the wall, opposite the first side of the wall (see Grubka figure 1) in the attic space and above the wall (see Grubka figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Grubka, Brown, and McIntosh as applied to claim 8 are silent regarding the use of a solar power.
However, Brown further teaches it’s attic ventilation system comprises a solar panel (Brown 5) mounted to a roof structure (see Brown figure 1) on a second side of the wall and above the wall (see Brown figure 1), a power cord (Brown 4) coupling the solar panel to the fan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Grubka’s system with Brown’s teachings of utilizing a solar panel for powering the ventilation system to produce a predictable result of powering the fan utilizing solar energy to avoid increasing the household energy costs.
Regarding claim 10, Grubka discloses an attic ventilation system (Grubka 10) comprising:
A flexible tube (Grubka 84, see Grubka paragraph [0036)) including a proximal end(end connected to 82), a central portion, and a distal end (Grubka 88), the proximal end configured to be joined with a soffit (Grubka 52) and in fluid communication with a soffit opening (Grubka 57) defined by the soffit (see Grubka figure 1), the central portion configured to extend upward adjacent a rafter (Grubka 44) disposed over an attic space (Grubka 16) in a building, the central portion configured to be adjacent the rafter (Grubka [0035]) and extend in an upwardly angled direction (see Grubka figure 1), the central portion flexibly bent (Grubka [0036] teaches an embodiment where the extension portion 84 is a separate segment that is flexible) to follow a contour of an underlying insulation layer (Grubka 40) that at least partially supports the central portion; and
A fan (Grubka 60) mounted to the roof and configured to draw an airflow through the proximal end of the flexible tube (see Grubka figure 1).
Grubka is silent regarding the fan being joined to the distal end of the flexible tube, mounting of the fan and flexible tube and the use of a solar panel, the fan being a direct current coaxial fan, the operating voltage of the fan, and the output airflow of the fan.
However, Brown teaches an attic ventilation system (see Brown figure 1) comprising a flexible tube (Brown 2) including a proximal end in fluid communication with a soffit opening (see Brown figure 1), and a distal end joined to a fan (Brown 3), wherein the fan is a direct current coaxial fan (Brown [0016] and figure 2) operable at less than 12 volts (Brown [0016]) to output airflow at a rate of at least 10 CFM (Brown [0016]) that is configured to provide positive pressure (Brown [0006]) within the attic space and exhaust air through a primary vent (see Brown figure 1) on the roof to force heated air out of the attic and also reduce losses of air conditioned air from the living space, a solar panel (Brown 5) mounted to a roof structure (see Brown figure 1), and a power cord (Brown 4) coupling the solar panel to the fan. Brown further teaches a band attached to the motor for securing the motor to a rafter (see Brown figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Grubka’s system to utilize Brown’s teachings of positive pressure fan connected to the flexible tube and providing at least 10 CFM of airflow at less than 12 volts and secured by a band and a solar panel to power the system to produce a predictable result of producing positive pressure to limit losses of conditioned interior air thereby improving overall system efficiency and safely securing the fan and avoid increasing energy bills by utilizing the solar panel system to power the attic ventilation system.
Further, in the related field of duct supporting apparatus, McIntosh teaches a duct supporting apparatus (McIntosh 100) comprising a saddle (McIntosh 101) and a band (McIntosh 104) for securing a duct to a rafter (McIntosh 202).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Grubka’s system to utilize McIntosh’s teaching of a saddle and band for supporting a duct to produce a predictable result of supporting the middle section of the flexible tube.
Regarding claim 11, Grubka, Brown, and McIntosh as applied to claim 10 teach a screen (Grubka [0029]) configured to be placed adjacent the soffit opening and a trim ring (outer edge of Grubka’s vent 64) configured to conceal an uneven cut edge of the soffit surrounding the soffit opening.
Regarding claim 12, Grubka, Brown, and McIntosh as applied to claim 11 teach the fan is joined with the tube at a distal end (see Brown figure 2) and includes a mounting portion configured to receive a band that is fastenable to the rafter to suspend the fan from the rafter (see Brown figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Grubka, Stevenson, McIntosh, and Parker as applied to claim 12 teach the central portion of the tube extends away from the fan (see Grubka figure 1) and toward the soffit opening, wherein the central portion extends over a wall (Grubka 20)(see Grubka figure 1), wherein the proximal end (end connected to transition portion 82) is located on a first side of the wall (see Grubka figure 1), wherein the fan is located at the distal end (Grubka 88) on a second side of the wall (see Grubka figure 1), opposite the first side of the wall, in the attic space and above the wall (see Grubka figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Grubka, Brown, and McIntosh as applied to claim 11 teach the fan is fastened to a rafter by a band (see Brown figure 2).
Claim(s) 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grubka (US 2009/0311958 A1) in view of Brown (US 2012/0055104 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Grubka discloses an attic ventilation system (Grubka 10) comprising:
A plurality of rafters (Grubka 44) supporting a roof structure (Grubka 18) under which an attic space (Grubka 16) is defined;
An overhang (see Grubka figure 1) extending outward from a vertical wall (Grubka 20) having a first side (Grubka 26) and a second side (Grubka 22) disposed on opposite sides of a vertical plane;
A soffit (Grubka 52) defining a soffit opening (Grubka 57), the soffit positioned on the first side of the wall (see Grubka figure 1);
A flexible tube (Grubka 84, see paragraph [0036]) including a proximal end (end near 82) and a distal end (Grubka 88), the proximal end joined with the soffit (see Grubka figure 1), the flexible tube extending upward adjacent a rafter (see Grubka figure 1) of the plurality of rafters, the flexible tube being flexibly conformed to extend over a vertical wall (see Grubka figure 1);
A fan (Grubka 60) positioned on the roof on the second side of the wall (see Grubka figure 1) and configured to pull airflow into the tube through the proximal end into the attic space and discharge it out of the vent opening on the roof (see Grubka figure 1); and
The attic space is bounded by a layer of insulation (Grubka 40) below the plurality of rafters.
Grubka is silent regarding the fan being joined with the distal end of the tube, the fan’s operating voltage and output airflow, the fan providing positive pressure within the attic space, and the fan being disposed at least two feet above the insulation.
However, Brown teaches an attic ventilation system (see Brown figure 1) comprising a flexible tube (Brown 2) including a proximal end in fluid communication with a soffit opening (see Brown figure 1), and a distal end joined to a fan (Brown 3), wherein the fan is a direct current coaxial fan (Brown [0016] and figure 2) operable at less than 12 volts (Brown [0016]) to output airflow at a rate of at least 10 CFM (Brown [0016]) that is configured to provide positive pressure (Brown [0006]) within the attic space and exhaust air through a primary vent (see Brown figure 1) on the roof to force heated air out of the attic and also reduce losses of air conditioned air from the living space. Brown further teaches a band attached to the motor for securing the motor to a rafter (see Brown figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Grubka’s system to utilize Brown’s teachings of positive pressure fan connected to the flexible tube and providing at least 10 CFM of airflow at less than 12 volts and secured by a band to produce a predictable result of producing positive pressure to limit losses of conditioned interior air thereby improving overall system efficiency and safely securing the fan.
However, Grubka teaches the end of the flexible tube is spaced apart from the insulation (Grubka [0034]) to provide improved flow of air through the attic ventilation system and a court has held that it is not inventive to discover an optimum range within the prior art conditions. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Grubka’s teachings of spacing an aperture above the insulation that height of the air outlet is a results effective variable that effects air flow rate and would have selected an optimal height for the vent outlet and fan of at least two feet above the insulation layer to provide improved airflow.
Regarding claim 17, Grubka and Stevenson as applied to claim 15 teach the roof structure (Grubka 18) has an unspecified run distance and the vent’s flexible tube (Grubka 84) has a run distance of 3-6 feet (Grubka [0034]). Grubka further teaches that spacing the outlet of the flexible tube from the insulation improves airflow (Grubka [0034]).
Grubka, and Brown as applied to claim 15 are silent regarding the exact run length of the roof and is therefore silent regarding the exact ratio of fan location to the roof run length.
However, a court has held that it is not inventive to discover an optimum range within the prior art conditions. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Grubka’s teachings of Spacing an aperture above the insulation that run length is a results effective variable that effects air flow rate and would have selected an optimal run length for the fan location of 1/3 of the roof run length.
Regarding claim 18, Grubka, and Brown as applied to claim 1 are silent regarding the use of a solar panel.
However, Brown further teaches it’s attic ventilation system comprises a solar panel (Brown 5) mounted to a roof structure (see Brown figure 1), a power cord (Brown 4) coupling the solar panel to the fan, and the solar panel is located at least 1/3 the run distance from the overhang (see Brown figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Grubka’s system with Brown’s teachings of utilizing a solar panel for powering the ventilation system to produce a predictable result of powering the fan utilizing solar energy to avoid increasing the household energy costs.
Regarding claim 19, Grubka and Brown as applied to claim 15 further teach the attic ventilation system comprises a trim ring (outer edge of Grubka’s vent 64) configured to conceal an uneven cut edge of the soffit surrounding the soffit opening defined by the soffit (see Grubka figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, Grubka and Brown as applied to claim 15 teach the fan (Brown 3) is attached to the distal end of the tube (see Brown figure 1) and includes a portion configured to receive a band (see Brown figure 2) that is fastenable to the rafter to suspend the fan from the rafter, a trim ring (outer edge of Grubka’s vent 64) configured to conceal an uneven cut edge of the soffit surrounding the soffit opening defined by the soffit (see Grubka figure 1).
Grubka, and Brown as applied to claim 15 are silent regarding the exact run length of the roof and is therefore silent regarding the exact ratio of fan location to the roof run length.
However, a court has held that it is not inventive to discover an optimum range within the prior art conditions. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Grubka’s teachings of Spacing an aperture above the insulation that run length is a results effective variable that effects air flow rate and would have selected an optimal run length for the fan location of 1/3 of the roof run length.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grubka (US 2009/0311958 A1), Brown (US 2012/0055104 A1), and McIntosh (US 2009/0078332 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Potter (US 2014/0081468 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Grubka, Brown, and McIntosh as applied to claim 1 are silent regarding the use of a thermostat or humidistat for controlling the attic ventilation fan.
However, Potter teaches an attic ventilation system (see Potter figure 1) comprising an eave fan (Potter 38) controlled by an integrated electronic controller (Potter 12) that comprises a thermostat and humidistat (Potter 50) configured to control the fan to start, run, and stop based on control signals provided by the thermostat and humidistat (Potter [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Grubka’s system to utilize Potter’s teachings of a controller comprising a thermostat and humidistat to produce a predictable result of maintaining the desired temperature and humidity within the attic space while reducing runtime of the fan thereby reducing power consumption and extending the life of the fan.
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