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 / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 12/3/25 response to the Office Action dated 9/3/25. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are amended.
Claims 6-8 and 14-18 remain withdrawn.
Claim 20 is new
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and claims have overcome the previously set forth objection and rejection so those objection and rejection are withdrawn accordingly.
NOTE: If the claims being examined are ever in condition for allowance, it’s noted that withdrawn claims must be cancelled or eligible for rejoinder before the application is in a state for allowance. It’s noted that independent claims 1 and 20, as currently recited are specific to Species II. See the Restriction/Election dated 6/10/25 for more details and note that claim 20 is limited to Species II for the same or substantially the same reason as described for claim 1.
Response to Remarks
Applicant states on pg. 7 that the amendment to claim 1 overcomes the previous rejection in view of Ando. Examiner agrees that Ando does not teach the new limitations recited in amended claim 1. For this reason, Ando in view of Meining (EP 0047467 A1) is relied on to teach claim 1. Ando is a previously cited reference and Meining is a newly cited reference applied to the rejections to claim 1 (and dependent claims therefrom), which comprises a new grounds of rejection as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's other remarks on pgs. 7-8 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant states on pg. 7 that Ando fails to teach a connector that is connectable to a duct. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mapped on pgs. 4-5 of the previous Office Action, Ando teaches the modular duct connector is connectable to a duct via the through hole in the modular duct connector. Evidence has not been provided for said allegation, such as why the mapping in the previous Office Action does not read on the claimed limitation, therefore said remark is not persuasive.
Applicant states on pg. 7 that the a non-uniform curvature is more complex and therefore a person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to modify the connector of Ando in such a manner. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in further detail in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section below, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the edge in view of newly cited reference Meining to have a non-uniform curvature to increase the efficiency of the airflow due to reduced friction and turbulence. To the extent the Applicant disagrees, then the Examiner takes the position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the edge to have a non-uniform curvature. Therefore, said remark is not persuasive.
Applicant states on pg. 8 that Ando discloses at least one of the sides of the modular duct connector is an isosceles triangle which necessarily means that wall has a different configuration than the two perpendicularly oriented, rectangular walls. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., different configuration) is not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To elaborate, the relevant portion of the recited limitation in claim 20 is “wherein the modular duct connector has a body including a first wall, a second wall, and a third wall, the first wall, the second wall, and the third wall being substantially identical and oriented perpendicular to one another” (emphasis added). The limitation “being substantially identical…to one another” renders the claim indefinite, as explained in further detail in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section below, so Examiner has interpreted “substantially identical” for the purposes of substantiative examination as identical in size, contour, surface, and/or shape, or alternatively, appearing visually the same in a drawing or figure to one of ordinary skill in the art. Under this interpretation, Ando reads on the recited limitation because the top, bottom, and right walls all have flat surfaces and therefore have identical surfaces. Therefore, said remark is not persuasive.
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.
Claims 4 and 20 are 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.
a. Claim 4, line 4 recites “a second opening” (emphasis added) which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the “second opening” recited in line 2 is the same or different from the one recited in line 4. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it's presumed that they are the same opening.
Claim 4, line 3 recites “a first corner” (emphasis added) which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the “first corner” recited at the beginning of line 3 is the same or different from the one recited at the end of line 3. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it's presumed that they are the same corner.
Claim 4, line 4 recites “a second corner” (emphasis added) which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the “second corner” recited in line 3 is the same or different from the one recited in line 4. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it's presumed that they are the same corner.
Claim 20 is 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially identical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The as-filed specification does state in Par. 0043 that “The distal or free edge of each of the first wall 56, second wall 58, and third wall 60 may have a substantially similar contour”, but this doesn’t define the scope of “substantially identical”. For the purpose of substantiative examination, Examiner interprets “substantially identical” to at least have the same interpretation as identical in size, contour, surface, and/or shape, or alternatively, appear visually the same in a drawing or figure to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Amendments to the claims are kindly requested for clarification.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ando et al (JP 09310899 A, hereafter Ando).
Regarding claim 20, Ando discloses a ventilator (Par. 0024, ventilator) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 2, main body casing 1) having at least one opening formed therein (Fig. 2, indoor air inlet 10 and indoor blowout port 9, outdoor blowout port 8, and outdoor suction port 11, which are openings within connection surface 19. See “any one of the indoor suction port 10, the outdoor suction port 11, the indoor blowout port 9, and the outdoor blowout port 8 is opened as an opening in each of the connection surfaces 19”), the housing having a plurality of sides including a first side and a second side (annotated Fig. A); and
a modular duct connector (Figs. 2-4, duct connection member 12. A modular duct connector is a duct connector designed to be a standardized unit for flexibility and variety in use or modular, therefore duct connection member 12 is a ‘modular duct connector’ because it has the flexibility to be used in the varied orientations shown in Fig. 3 and 4) having a through hole for connection with a duct (Figs. 2-4, the inside of connection port 14 and “a duct is connected to a connection port 14 of the duct connection member 12 to communicate with the indoor side…and a duct is connected to a connection port 14 of the duct connection member 12 to communicate with the outside of the room (mostly, the outdoors)”), the modular duct connector being connectable to the at least one opening of the housing (Figs. 2-4, “each duct connection member 12 is configured as a hollow body in the shape of a right-angled isosceles triangular prism having a flange 21 matching the flange of the connection surface 19 on the open surface side”) in at least a first configuration (Figs. 2, 4 and annotated Fig. A, connection port 14 is arranged at the first side of main body casing 1) and a second configuration (Figs. 2, 4 and annotated Fig. A, connection port 14 is arranged at the second side of main body casing 1), wherein in the first configuration, the through hole is arranged at the first side of the housing (Figs. 2, 4 and annotated Fig. A, the inside of connection port 14 is arranged at the first side of main body casing 1) and in the second configuration, the through hole is arranged at the second side of the housing (Figs. 2, 4 and annotated Fig. A, the inside of connection port 14 is arranged at the second side of main body casing 1),
wherein the modular duct connector has a body (Figs. 3-4, top, bottom, left, and right walls of duct connection body 12) including a first wall (Fig. 3, right wall), a second wall (Fig. 3, top wall), and a third wall (Fig. 3, bottom wall), the first wall, the second wall, and the third wall being substantially identical (Figs. 2-3, which show the top, bottom, and right walls all have flat surfaces and are therefore identical per the interpretation of “substantially identical” in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above because they have identical surfaces) and oriented perpendicular to one another (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
441
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (First side)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second side)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Third side)][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Ando showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10-11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al (JP 09310899 A, hereafter Ando) in view of Meining (EP 0047467 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ando discloses a ventilator (Par. 0024, ventilator) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 2, main body casing 1) having at least one opening formed therein (Fig. 2, indoor air inlet 10 and indoor blowout port 9, outdoor blowout port 8, and outdoor suction port 11, which are openings within connection surface 19. See “any one of the indoor suction port 10, the outdoor suction port 11, the indoor blowout port 9, and the outdoor blowout port 8 is opened as an opening in each of the connection surfaces 19”), the housing having a plurality of sides including a first side and a second side (annotated Fig. A); and
a modular duct connector (Figs. 2-4, duct connection member 12. A modular duct connector is a duct connector designed to be a standardized unit for flexibility and variety in use or modular, therefore duct connection member 12 is a ‘modular duct connector’ because it has the flexibility to be used in the varied orientations shown in Fig. 3 and 4) having a through hole for connection with a duct (Figs. 2-4, the inside of connection port 14 and “a duct is connected to a connection port 14 of the duct connection member 12 to communicate with the indoor side…and a duct is connected to a connection port 14 of the duct connection member 12 to communicate with the outside of the room (mostly, the outdoors)”), the modular duct connector being connectable to the at least one opening of the housing (Figs. 2-4, “each duct connection member 12 is configured as a hollow body in the shape of a right-angled isosceles triangular prism having a flange 21 matching the flange of the connection surface 19 on the open surface side”) in at least a first configuration (Figs. 2, 4 and annotated Fig. A, connection port 14 is arranged at the first side of main body casing 1) and a second configuration (Figs. 2, 4 and annotated Fig. A, connection port 14 is arranged at the second side of main body casing 1), wherein in the first configuration, the through hole is arranged at the first side of the housing (Figs. 2, 4 and annotated Fig. A, the inside of connection port 14 is arranged at the first side of main body casing 1) and in the second configuration, the through hole is arranged at the second side of the housing (Figs. 2, 4 and annotated Fig. A, the inside of connection port 14 is arranged at the second side of main body casing 1),
wherein the modular duct connector includes a body having a plurality of walls (Figs. 3-4, top, bottom, left, and right walls of duct connection body 12), and an edge of at least one of the plurality of walls (Figs. 3-4, free edge of top, bottom, left, and right walls of duct connection body 12) is connectable to the at least one opening (Fig. 2, indoor air inlet 10 and indoor blowout port 9, outdoor blowout port 8, and outdoor suction port 11, which are openings within connection surface 19.).
However, Ando does not disclose an edge of at least one of the plurality of walls connectable to the at least one opening has a non-uniformly curved configuration.
Meining discloses a ventilation system (Par. 0001) similar to the present invention and Meining further discloses it is known for an edge of at least one of a plurality of walls (Fig. 1, edges of top, bottom, left, and right walls of channel section 10. In particular, the edges that face channel section 12) connectable to the at least one opening (Fig. 2, opening in channel section 12) has a non-uniformly curved configuration (Figs. 1-2, which shows the edges are flat in the middle portions and curved at the end portions, therefore the edges have a non-uniformly curved configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the edges of Ando with the same of Meining in order to have an edge of at least one of the plurality of walls connectable to the at least one opening has a non-uniformly curved configuration and thereby increase the efficiency of the airflow due to reduced friction and turbulence.
To the extent the Applicant disagrees, then the Examiner takes the position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the edge non-uniformly curved because the court has held that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element were significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IV B. In this case, the applicant has not provided any significance to the non-uniformly curved shape of the edge. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape of the edge to be non-uniformly curved.
Regarding claim 2, Ando discloses the ventilator of claim 1, wherein the modular duct connector (Figs. 2-4, duct connection member 12, as explained in claim 1) further comprises a collar (Figs. 3-4, the outside of connection port 14) positioned coaxially with the through hole (Figs. 2-4, the inside of connection port 14).
Regarding claim 3, Ando discloses the ventilator of claim 1, wherein the at least one opening (Fig. 2, indoor air inlet 10 and indoor blowout port 9, outdoor blowout port 8, and outdoor suction port 11, which are openings within connection surface 19) is arranged at a corner of the housing (Fig. 2, main body casing 1. “That is, in the main body casing 1 of the heat exchange ventilation apparatus, ridge line sections of four corner portions of a rectangular parallelepiped are obliquely cut in a chamfered shape, and a planar shape has an octagonal shape in appearance as shown in FIG. 2. The cut surfaces are configured as parallelogram connection surfaces 19, and any one of the indoor suction port 10, the outdoor suction port 11, the indoor blowout port 9, and the outdoor blowout port 8 is opened as an opening in each of the connection surfaces 19.” To elaborate, the indoor air inlet 10 and indoor blowout port 9, outdoor blowout port 8, and outdoor suction port 11 are formed at the corners or intersections of the sides of main body casing 1. To use indoor air inlet 10 as an example, the indoor air inlet 10 is arranged at the corner formed by the intersection of the first and second side, as shown in annotated Fig. A).
Regarding claim 4, Ando discloses the ventilator of claim 3, wherein the at least one opening (Fig. 2, indoor air inlet 10 and indoor blowout port 9, outdoor blowout port 8, and outdoor suction port 11, which are openings within connection surface 19) includes a first opening (Fig. 2, indoor air inlet 10) and a second opening (Fig. 2, outdoor blowout port 8) and the at least one corner includes a first corner (annotated Fig. A, corner formed by the first and second side) and a second corner (annotated Fig. A, corner formed by the second and third side), the first corner being arranged at a first corner of the housing and a second opening arranged at a second corner of the housing (Fig. 2 and annotated Fig. A).
Regarding claim 5, Ando discloses the ventilator of claim 3, wherein the modular duct connector (Figs. 2-4, duct connection member 12, as explained in claim 1) includes a body (Fig. 3, right, left, top, and bottom walls and “each duct connection member 12 is configured as a hollow body in the shape of a right-angled isosceles triangular prism having a flange 21 matching the flange of the connection surface 19 on the open surface side”) having a first wall (Fig. 3, right wall), a second wall (Fig. 3, top wall), and a third wall (Fig. 3, left wall), the first wall, the second wall, and the third wall being oriented perpendicular to one another (Fig. 3, right, left, and top walls) and the through hole being formed in the first wall (Fig. 3, the inside of connection port 14 is formed in the right wall and “on one surface of two surfaces of a parallelogram forming a right angle, a cylindrical connection port 14 is provided at a right angle to the surface, so that a duct can be connected”).
Regarding claim 10, Ando discloses the ventilator of claim 1, further comprises a plurality of fasteners (“A duct connecting member 12 or a closing plate 13 can be attached to the outdoor blow-out port 8, the indoor blow-out port 9, the indoor suction port 10, and the outdoor suction port 11 by screws”) for selectively connecting the modular duct connector (Figs. 2-4, duct connection member 12, as explained in claim 1) to the housing (Fig. 2, main body casing 1) in the first configuration (Figs. 2, 4 and annotated Fig. A, connection port 14 is arranged at the first side of main body casing 1) and the second configuration (Figs. 2, 4 and annotated Fig. A, connection port 14 is arranged at the second side of main body casing 1).
Regarding claim 11, Ando discloses the ventilator of claim 10, wherein at least one of the plurality of fasteners (“A duct connecting member 12 or a closing plate 13 can be attached to the outdoor blow-out port 8, the indoor blow-out port 9, the indoor suction port 10, and the outdoor suction port 11 by screws”) is mounted to the modular duct connector (Figs. 2-4, duct connection member 12, as explained in claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, Ando discloses the ventilator of claim 1, wherein the ventilator (Par. 0024, ventilator) is a bypass ventilator (“A bypass bypassing the heat exchanger 2 is formed between the other end of the heat exchanger 2 and the side surface of the main body casing 1. This bypass is normally closed by a damper (not shown) or the like.”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al (JP 09310899 A, hereafter Ando) in view of Meining (EP 0047467 A1) and further in view of Huang (CN 205805961 U).
Reference is made to the attached Chinese to English machine translation of Huang ‘961.
Regarding claim 9, Ando, as modified above, discloses the ventilator of claim 1, wherein the modular duct connector (Figs. 2-4, duct connection member 12, as explained in claim 1) includes a body (Fig. 3, right, left, top, and bottom walls and “each duct connection member 12 is configured as a hollow body in the shape of a right-angled isosceles triangular prism having a flange 21 matching the flange of the connection surface 19 on the open surface side”) having at least one wall (Figs. 3-4, flange 21) with a free edge (Fig. 3, edge on back of flange 21. “each duct connection member 12 is configured as a hollow body in the shape of a right-angled isosceles triangular prism having a flange 21 matching the flange of the connection surface 19 on the open surface side”).
However, Ando does not disclose a sealing groove is formed in a free edge of the at least one wall.
Huang discloses a ventilator blower (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Huang further discloses it is known to form a sealing groove (“A circular groove 18 is provided on the power supply board 3 along the periphery of the drive control board 5, and a waterproof gasket 4 is positioned in the circular groove 18”) in a free edge (“…along the periphery…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wall of Ando, as modified above, to include the sealing groove of Huang in order to include a gasket, as suggested by Huang: “a waterproof gasket 4 is positioned in the circular groove 18”, and thereby prevent water from entering, as suggested by Huang: “effectively improving internal waterproofing and preventing water from entering” to prevent uncontrolled humidity from increasing, which makes the ventilator more desirable to users who prefer low humidity environments.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al (JP 09310899 A, hereafter Ando) in view of Meining (EP 0047467 A1) and further in view of Breed (US 20160377311 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Ando, as modified above, discloses the ventilator of claim 11.
However, Ando, as modified above, does not disclose wherein the at least one of the plurality of fasteners is mounted at an interior surface of the modular duct connector, at a location accessible via the through hole.
Examiner notes Ando discloses “duct connection member 12 can be connected to each connection surface 19 by a screw or the like”.
Breed discloses an air duct system (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Breed further discloses it is known for a plurality of fasteners (Fig. 1A, sawtooth connectors 130. “In FIG. 1A, there are two sawtooth connectors (130).” and “In other embodiments, the exemplary detents useful in embodiments of the present invention may connect to a crossbar behind the air vent grill inside the air duct system.”) to be mounted at an interior surface (Fig. 1A, interior surface 122) of a duct connector (Fig. 1A, support plate 110. “The support plate (110) of FIG. 1A provides a surface to which the other components of the air duct sealing system (100) may be connected.” and “The flange of FIG. 1A extends away from the first side (112) toward the interior of the room and serves as an interface for connecting an air duct to the removable air duct sealing system (100) of FIG. 1A that would carry airflow to or from a pressurization or depressurization system.”), at a location accessible via a through hole (Fig. 1A, opening 116. “opening (116) extending through the support plate (110) from the first side (112) to the second side (114)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the fasteners of Ando, as modified above, with the same of Breed because the substitution of the fasteners of Breed would have yielded predicable results, namely, means for connecting a duct to a duct connector Agrizap, Inc. v Woodstream Corp. 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed Cir. 2008).
Regarding claim 13, Ando, as modified above, discloses ventilator of claim 10.
However, Ando, as modified above, does not disclose the plurality of fasteners include a component body having at least one flange extending therefrom, the component body being rotatable about an axis between an unlocked first position in which the flange is engaged with a first stop and a second position in which the flange is engaged with a second stop.
Examiner notes Ando discloses “duct connection member 12 can be connected to each connection surface 19 by a screw or the like”.
Breed discloses an air duct system (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Breed further discloses it is known for a plurality of fasteners (Fig. 1A, sawtooth connectors 130 and air vent grill 106. “In FIG. 1A, there are two sawtooth connectors (130).” and “The detents (132) shown FIG. 1B are configured to catch a backside (134) of a louver (105) of the air vent grill (106) in FIG. 1A to hold the removable air duct sealing system (100) in place covering the air vent grill (106).” Examiner notes the plurality of fasteners comprises each instance of sawtooth connector 130 paired with a corresponding louver 105 of the air vent grill 106) to include a component body (annotated Fig. B) having at least one flange extending therefrom (annotated Fig. B), the component body being rotatable about an axis (“The pin (140) of FIG. 1A allows the sawtooth connector (130) to be hingably coupled to the pin (140) via a hole (129) formed in the sawtooth connector (130). The freedom of movement that the hinge between the sawtooth connector (130) and the air vent sealing system (100) provides assists an operator when inserting the connector (130) into or removing the connector (130) from the louvers (105).”) between an unlocked first position in which the flange is engaged with a first stop (Fig. 1A and “The pin (140) of FIG. 1A allows the sawtooth connector (130) to be hingably coupled to the pin (140) via a hole (129) formed in the sawtooth connector (130).” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the flange would be in an unlocked first position when the flange is rotated downwards, such that rests against the front of air vent grill 106 (i.e., first stop)) and a second position in which the flange is engaged with a second stop (Fig. 1A and “the detents (132) shown FIG. 1B are configured to catch a backside (134) of a louver (105) of the air vent grill (106) to hold the removable air duct sealing system (100) in place”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand flange would be in a second position when the flange isn’t rotated and is pushed through the louver 105, such that the flange is engaged with the backside 134 (i.e., second stop)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the fasteners of Ando, as modified above, with the same of Breed because the substitution of the fasteners of Breed would have yielded predicable results, namely, means for connecting a duct to a duct connector Agrizap, Inc. v Woodstream Corp. 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed Cir. 2008).
PNG
media_image3.png
567
590
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Component body)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Flange)]
Fig. B: Annotated copy of Fig. 1B from Breed showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ohrem et al. (US 20170152816 A1) discloses it is known for a body to have a first wall, a second wall, and a third wall, the first wall, the second wall, and the third wall being substantially identical.
Drake et al. (EP 1637370 A2) discloses walls with a non-uniform curved configuration that mate with an opening.
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 Elizabeth Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30-6:00 ET.
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, 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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights