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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks, Amendments
Applicant is thanked for their March 12, 2026 response to the Office Action filed February 24, 2026 In particular, Applicant is thanked for their amendments to claim 1, rendering the Objections moot. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 3, and 6 – 10 have been considered, and inasmuch as they pertain to prior art still being relied upon, the examiner’s response follows below. Respectfully, any arguments/ remarks directed towards newly amended limitations are moot if they resulted in a new ground(s) of rejection.
Please note that claims 4, 5, and 11 – 20 were previously cancelled; claims 1 – 3, and 6 – 10 are presented for examination.
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claims 1 – 3, and 6 – 9 as being unpatentable over “Tech Talks: How to Cut a Duct Collar into Duct Board”1 (hereinafter Tech Talks), in view of Master Flow®, in view of Gray (US 2018/0106495), Applicant remarked (inter alia), “these features (“separating a portion…. so as to create a hole in the outer surface of the register box”, “fitting an edge of the outer surface of the register box at the created hole into the groove”) are neither shown nor suggested in the prior art combination”
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claims 1 – 3, and 6 – 9 as being unpatentable over “Tech Talks: How to Cut a Duct Collar into Duct Board”2 (hereinafter Tech Talks), in view of Master Flow®, in view of Gray (US 2018/0106495), Applicant remarked (inter alia), “the prior art combination fails to show this feature (“the collar has a notch or groove…(that) receives both an inner edge of the hole of the flange and the inner edge of the outer surface of the register box at the hole.”)… From the above illustrations (Goettel figures 8 – 11) it is noted that the Goettel patent does not show the flange 32 has been received within the groove. However, the However, there is no teaching or suggestion in the Goettel patent that the groove that receives the flange also receives the edge of the hole that is formed in the outer surface of the register box.”
The examiner respectfully notes that while the prior art shall be considered for all that it discloses, Goettel was relied upon only to teach that it is well known for a notch/groove of a collar to receive at least an inner edge of a flange.
“A groove 30 is provided circumferentially of sleeve 12 adjacent end 14 thereof in order to retainingly receive a frustoconical shield 32 arranged for sealingly abutting a duct wall in which fitting 10 is mounted, as will be described below. Shield 32 can be formed as by being cut in a known manner from a flat sheet of material and curved into groove 30 and fastened together in a suitable, known manner” (cited col 4, lns 20 – 27).
PNG
media_image1.png
291
253
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Please note that it is apparent that “Tech Talks” discloses a collar that comprises a flat flange inserted into a circumferential groove (1:37/3:52). Due to the light reflected from the sheetmetal, an external circumferential groove is difficult to see, but the groove can be seen internally (in the collar interior). As a circumferential groove can be seen, it is apparent that the circumferential groove then would also receive the outer surface of the register box.
PNG
media_image2.png
306
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In order to provide for a compact prosecution, the examiner provided patent art as evidence that such techniques were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to support the disclosure of the non-patent art.
Because “Tech Talks” did not explicitly disclose a groove, and therefore the step of “inserting an internal circumference of a flange into a groove formed around an outer circumference of a collar in a location between opposite ends of the collar”, Goettel was relied upon only to disclose the step of “inserting an internal circumference of a flange into a groove” was known in the mechanical arts.
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claims 1 – 3, and 6 – 9 as being unpatentable over “Tech Talks: How to Cut a Duct Collar into Duct Board”3 (hereinafter Tech Talks), in view of Master Flow®, in view of Gray (US 2018/0106495), Applicant remarked - continued- (inter alia): “Furthermore, there is no teaching or suggestion of the structure in order to achieve a "better seal" and to achieve and "audible feedback" to the installer.
The examiner respectfully notes that, even if these attributes were included in the claims, they would be rejected as being rendering the claim indefinite under 35 USC §112(b). The specification must supply some objective standard for measuring the scope of subjective terms such as “better seal” and “audible feedback”. Without an objective standard provided by Applicant, the public would be unable to determine the scope of the claim. A claim term that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. (MPEP 2173.05(b) IV).
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or under 35 U.S.C. §119(e), as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 15/439,454, 15/703,436, 15/864,612, 16/005,235, 16/036,059, 17/171,638, 17/175,956, and 17/175,922, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.:
Independent process claim 1 recites “a locating collar having a collar with a flange”, and all of its dependent claims further recite processes steps of fabricating the flange onto the collar, and relative dimension of the collar, the flange, and an insulated register box.
Independent apparatus claim 12, and independent apparatus claim 16 also recite the structural limitations of “a locating collar… said collar having a flange affixed to the outside diameter of said collar, and all of their dependent claims further disclose structural features of the collar, flange, and (in claim 16) an insulated register box.
While the applicant has disclosed collars in his related cases, he has not disclosed flanged collars, so he does not receive the benefit of any of the CIP priority dates. The effectively filed date is the filing date of the present application.
Claim Objections
In re Claim 1, in light of the antecedence for “an outer circumference” provided in lines 5-6, please amend line 11 to read “the inner circumference or [[an]] the outer circumference of the collar;” for proper antecedent basis.
Claims 2 and 6 – 10 are objected, as being dependent from an objected base 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 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 of this title, 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, 34, and 6 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over “Tech Talks: How to Cut a Duct Collar into Duct Board”5 (hereinafter “Tech Talks”), in view of Master Flow ®, in view of Gray (US 2018/0106495), in view of Goettel (US 4,491,124).
In re Claim 1, “Tech talks”6 discloses a process for forming an insulated ventilation duct, the process comprising:
forming an insulation across interior surfaces of a ventilation box (see the red rigid insulation in the box throughout, but easily seen from 1:20 – 1:25. This insulation is part of the duct board that the box is made of so inherently it has been formed), the insulation having a thickness (see screen shot at 1:05);
affixing an internal circumference of a flange around an outer circumference** of a collar in location between opposite ends of the collar7 such that the flange extends circumferentially around the collar
**(Please note that a circumferential groove around a circumference of the collar can be seen, as seen at least at video screen capture 1:37. The flange had already been inserted into this groove, prior to the beginning of the video)
(Please refer to the video screen capture, at least at 0:35, where technician places their fingers around a flange located between the “tabbed end” and the “hemmed end” of the collar.)
placing the collar onto an outer surface of the ventilation box (see screen shot at 0:35);
tracing around an inner circumference or the outer circumference of the collar so as to mark the outer surface of the ventilation box so as to present a representation corresponding to the inner circumference or [[an]] the outer circumference of the collar (see screen shot at 0:45, detail at 0:55);
PNG
media_image3.png
680
1016
media_image3.png
Greyscale
separating a portion of the outer surface of the ventilation box from a remainder of the ventilation box corresponding to the representation so as to create a hole (1:23/3:52) in the outer surface of the ventilation box and so as to expose a portion of the insulation (see screen shots at 1:22, 1:23, and 1:27; note that the separation of a circular portion (or “plug”) exposes red solid insulation on the removed circular portion as well as the red solid insulation in the box interior that surrounds the hole where the plug was);
penetrating the insulation with an end of the collar until the end of the collar opens to an interior opening of the insulated register box (see video around 1:50 – 2:03, and screen shots at 1:32, 1:50, where the tabbed end is penetrating the insulation and being open to the interior. It is noted that the collar is secured by bending the tabs over against the inner surface of the rigid insulation (screen shot at 2:03), so the collar necessarily extends through the insulation and into the interior.); and
fitting an edge of the outer surface of the register box at the created hole into the groove of the collar such that the flange bears against the outer surface of the register box. (see the video 1:45 – 2:20 to see the flange pressed against the outer side of the box, screen shot at 1;50. Farther along, from 2:30 – 4:00, the video shows the flange being taped against the outer side of the box and sealed by the tape.)
“the collar fits nice and tight in the hole” (1:50-1:52)
“If we push on the collar slightly … it provides a very nice seal.” (2:02-2:08)
As the process of “Tech Talks” discloses wherein the outer circumference of the collar comprises affixing an internal circumference of a flange around an outer circumference of a collar in location between opposite ends of the collar, “Tech Talks” may be construed as being silent as to wherein the collar comprises a groove. Respectfully, while a “groove” is not discussed in “Tech Talks”, a groove can be seen, at least at 1:37/3:52. However, as “Tech Talks” utilizes a collar that already comprises a flange inserted into a groove,:
“Tech Talks” is silent as to the step of inserting an internal circumference of a flange into a groove formed around an outer circumference of a collar; and
“Tech Talks” may be construed as lacking the step of fitting an edge of the remainder of the ventilation box at the separated portion of the ventilation box into the groove of the collar.
Master Flow® teaches inserting an internal circumference of a flange into a groove (annotated, below) formed around an outer circumference of a collar in a location between opposite ends of a collar such that the flange extends circumferentially around the collar.
[AltContent: textbox (Groove/)]
PNG
media_image4.png
365
1199
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The images of Master Flow® show that the flange is a separate piece that has been wrapped around the slot (referred to as a groove in the application) and its ends spot welded together (see the images of Master Flow®).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed process as taught by Master Flow®, such that a groove is formed around an outer circumference of the collar to retain a flange, the process comprising:
inserting an internal circumference of the flange into a groove formed around an outer circumference of the collar in a location between opposite ends of the collar,
such that the flange extends circumferentially around the collar,
in order to allow a basic collar to be used for at least two models, the flanged collar and an unflanged collar, improving marketability.
Regarding the limitation, “fitting an edge of the outer surface of the register box at the created hole into the groove of the collar,” as “Tech talks” discloses the process comprises penetrating the insulation with an end of the collar until the end of the collar opens to an interior opening of the insulated register box (see video around 1:50 – 2:03, and screen shots at 1:32, 1:50) such that “the collar fits nice and tight in the hole”, it is apparent that the collar, and the groove into which the collar is inserted, fits against an edge of the outer surface of the register box.
When the process of “Tech Talks” is modified by Master Flow® such that the collar comprises a groove that receives the flange (which the examiner provides as further evidence), it is further apparent that the groove would receive an edge of the remainder of the box.
PNG
media_image5.png
344
343
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation, “an insulated register box”, “Tech talks” discloses an insulated duct for ventilation, not specifically a register box formed with insulation. However, the process of forming an insulated duct is analogous to the process of forming an insulated register box, as taught by Gray.
Gray teaches a register box (Fig 7: (20)) formed with insulation (50), where a collar (48) protrudes through the insulation into the interior. [0051]
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 proposed process, as taught by Gray, such that the duct is a register box for a supply or return register, easily attachable to a building ventilation system by a homeowner.
Provided as further evidence that the method of inserting an internal circumference of a flange into a groove formed around an outer circumference of a collar in a location between opposite ends of the collar such that the flange extends circumferentially around the collar is known in the art is Goettel.
Goettel teaches a method of forming a collar (10) comprising a groove (30) and a flange (32), wherein the circumferential groove (30) is provided in order to retainingly receive a shield (32) arranged for sealingly abutting a duct wall in which the collar (10) is mounted, the flange (32) can be formed as by being cut in a known manner from a flat sheet of material and curved into groove 30 and fastened together in a suitable, known manner (not shown).(col 4, lns 20 – 27).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed process, as taught by Goettel, such that the process comprises inserting an internal circumference of a flange into a groove formed around an outer circumference of a collar in a location between opposite ends of a collar such that the flange extends circumferentially around the collar, for the benefit of providing a surface to sealingly engage with an outer surface of a duct wall, reducing duct leakage.
The proposed combination would yield wherein the process comprises:
forming an insulation across interior surfaces of a register box, the insulation having a thickness;
inserting an internal circumference of a flange into a groove formed around an outer circumference of a collar in a location between opposite ends of the collar such that the flange extends circumferentially around the collar;
placing the collar onto an outer surface of the register box;
tracing around an inner circumference or the outer circumference of the collar so as to mark the outer surface of the register box so as to present a representation corresponding to the inner circumference or an outer circumference of the collar;
separating a portion of the outer surface of the register box from a remainder of the register box corresponding to the representation so as to create a hole in the outer surface of the register box and so as to expose a portion of the insulation;
penetrating the insulation with an end of the collar until the end of the collar opens to an interior opening of the insulated register box; and
fitting an edge of the outer surface of the register box at the created hole into the groove of the collar such that the flange bears against the outer surface of the register box.
In re Claim 3, “Tech talks” discloses wherein the outer surface of the register box having a length dimension or a width dimension, the width dimension greater than an outer diameter of the flange (Please refer to the video in its entirety, and screen shot at 3:32; the generic insulated box has a dimension that is greater than an outer diameter of the flange).
In re Claim 6, “Tech talks” discloses wherein the step of separating comprises snipping (0:55 – 1:22; screen capture at 1:05 ) through a surface of the register box around the representation (screen capture at 0:45); and removing the snipped surface from the remainder of the register box.
In re Claim 7, “Tech talks” discloses wherein the step of penetrating the insulation comprising: pushing an end (the tabbed end) of the collar through the insulation until the flange abuts the outer surface of the register box. (Please refer to the screen shot at 1:50, where the collar is pushed through the exposed insulation until the flange abuts the outer surface. Once abutting, the flange is affixed to the outer surface with tape, approximately at 2:2 0 – 3:30).
In re Claim 8, “Tech talks” discloses affixing the flange to the outer surface of the register box. (Once abutting, the flange is affixed to the outer surface with tape, approximately at 2:20 – 3:30)
In re Claim 9, “Tech talks” discloses wherein the step of affixing the flange comprising: applying a fastener (tape) to the flange so as to engage with the outer surface of the register box (approximately at 2:20 – 3:30) .
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over “Tech Talks: How to Cut a Duct Collar into Duct Board”, in view of Gray (US 2018/0106495), in view of Goettel (US 4,491,124), and further in view of Marquette et al (US 4,009,894).
In re Claim 2, the proposed process has been discussed, and discloses the collar having an outer diameter, the flange having an outer diameter. The proposed process is silent as to whether a width of the flange between the outer diameter of the collar and the outer diameter of the flange being greater than the thickness of the insulation.
However, forming sheetmetal fitting such that they preclude installation errors is known in the art, as evidenced by Marquette et al.
Marquette et al teaches a fitting having an attachment configuration for securing of the fitting to an insulated duct (Abstract), wherein the fitting is provided with a standing flange (analogous to the claimed collar) spaced from the end margin of the fitting a distance substantially equal to the thickness of the insulated duct wall adjacent the opening therein (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed process as taught by Marquette et al, such that the process comprises the flange comprises a width (the width defined as a distance between the outer diameter of the collar and the outer diameter of the flange) being substantially equal to the thickness of the insulation, for the benefit of simplifying the installation process.
Regarding the limitation that the flange width being greater than the thickness of the insulation, it would have been obvious to try forming the flange width greater than the thickness of the insulation, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over “Tech Talks: How to Cut a Duct Collar into Duct Board”8 (hereinafter “Tech Talks”), in view of Master Flow ®, in view of Gray (US 2018/0106495), in view of Goettel (US 4,491,124), and further in view of The Sheet Metal Kid: “How to install an Adhesive Duct Takeoff or Sticky Tape (hereinafter “sticky tape”)9”
In re Claim 10, the proposed process has been discussed, but lacks applying a mastic around an outer diameter of the flange and to the outer surface of the register box.
“Sticky Tape” shows a flanged duct secured with adhesive tape (see screen shot at 0:54 of 2:18), screws (see 1:13 – 1:39; screen shot at 1:33) and applying mastic around the outer diameter of the flange and the outer surface of the register box (see 1:40 – 2:12; screen shots at 1:43 and 2:12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed process as taught by “Sticky Tape”, such that the process includes an application of mastic to further enhance the seal and prevent leaks.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Of particular interest is Williams (US 3,477,745), who discloses:
inserting an internal circumference of a flange (30) into a groove (33) formed around an outer circumference of a collar (12) in a location between opposite ends of the collar such that the flange extends circumferentially around the collar;
separating a portion (15) of the outer surface of the register box (11) from a remainder of the register box corresponding to the representation so as to create a hole in the outer surface of the register box and so as to expose a portion of the insulation (10);
penetrating the insulation with an end of the collar until the end of the collar opens to an interior opening (29) of the insulated register box (as seen in fig 4); and
fitting an edge of the outer surface of the register box at the created hole into the groove (33) of the collar such that the flange bears against the outer surface of the register box (as seen in fig 4).
PNG
media_image6.png
486
1162
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Of particular interest is Kauffman (US 4,620,729), who discloses:
inserting an internal circumference of a flange (figs 1 – 4: (46)) into a groove (28) formed around an outer circumference of a collar (16) such that the flange extends circumferentially around the collar; and
placing the collar onto an outer surface (12) of a register box (fig 2: (10)) such that the flange bears against the outer surface of the register box.
PNG
media_image7.png
724
496
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Of particular interest is Schroeder (US 5,393,106), who discloses a process for forming a completely sealed knock-down collar for joining heating and cooling ducts to plenums. The knock-down collar is formed from an elongate sheet metal strip punched with a plurality of tabs along one edge, a plurality of diagonal slits spaced from the tabs, a target on one end and a slot on the other. The sheet metal strip is rolled into a tubular shape with diagonal slits forming a herringbone mounting flange and the tongue fitting the slot to lock the strip in the tubular shape. A non-drying sealer is provided beneath the herringbone mounting flange and along one end to seal the collar when mounted in a plenum.
PNG
media_image8.png
720
426
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frances F. Hamilton (she/her) whose telephone number is 571.270.5726. The examiner can normally be reached on Tu-Th; 9 – 6.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on 571.272.6460. 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, please visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For more information about Patent Center, please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center and for information about filing in DOCX format please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you are a Pro Se inventor and would like assistance, please call the Pro Se assistance center at 866.767.3848. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, please call 800.786.9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571.272.1000.
/Frances F Hamilton/
Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 Tech Talks: “How to Cut a Collar into Duct Board. Youtube, Dec 7, 2021. An adobe file has been provided with screen shots and a copy of the transcript
2 Tech Talks: “How to Cut a Collar into Duct Board. Youtube, Dec 7, 2021. An adobe file has been provided with screen shots and a copy of the transcript
3 Tech Talks: “How to Cut a Collar into Duct Board. Youtube, Dec 7, 2021. An adobe file has been provided with screen shots and a copy of the transcript
4 Claims 4, 5, and 11 – 20 have been cancelled by Applicant
5 Tech Talks: “How to Cut a Collar into Duct Board. Youtube, Dec 7, 2021.
An adobe file has been provided with screen shots and a copy of the transcript
7 former claim 5
8 Tech Talks: “How to Cut a Collar into Duct Board. Youtube, Dec 7, 2021. An adobe file has been provided with screen shots and a copy of the transcript
9 The Sheet Metal Kid: “How to install an Adhesive Duct or Sticky Tape. YouTube, Jan 21, 2014. An adobe file has been provided with screen shots.
Prosecution Insights