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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 11-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/20/2026. Claims 1-10 are examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 04/11/2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
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 (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Number 3,842,722 A to Miller in view of US Patent Number 5,729,935 to Schiedegger.
A) As per Claim 1, Miller teaches a vent enclosure (Miller: Figure 1) comprising:
an adapter (Miller: Figure 2, Item 15) that is configured to extend around a vent member (Miller: Figure 1, Item 10), the adapter having a plurality of attachment features (Miller: Figure 2, Item 15, has features 18-19 & holes to mate with fasteners through 45),
a hood (Miller: Figure 2, Item 45) that is attached to the plurality of attachment features of the adapter.
Miller does not teach that the adapter is an adapter strap,
the adapter strap having fastening ends; a fastener that is attached to the fastening ends to secure the adapter strap in an encircling position.
However, Schiedegger teaches the adapter is an adapter strap (Schiedegger: Figure 2),
the adapter strap having fastening ends; a fastener that is attached to the fastening ends to secure the adapter strap in an encircling position (Schiedegger: Figure 2, Item 32).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Miller by making the adapter a strap adapter, as taught by Schiedegger, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Miller with these aforementioned teachings of Schiedegger with the motivation of making installation easier when retrofitting or renovating an already finished wall.
B) As per Claim 2, Miller in view of Schiedegger teaches that the encircling position defines a receiver that secures the adapter strap relative to the vent member and positions the plurality of attachment features relative to the vent member (Miller: best shown in Figure 1, with Item 15 around Item 10), the receiver being positioned within an inner perimeter of the adapter strap and the plurality of attachment features being positioned around an outer periphery of the adapter strap (Miller: Figure 2, Item 15, has features 18-19 & holes to mate with fasteners through 45 are around outer periphery).
C) As per Claim 3, Miller in view of Schiedegger teaches that the plurality of attachment features in the encircling position locates the hood to extend over the adapter strap and covers the receiver that is formed within the inner perimeter of the adapter strap in the encircling position (Miller: best shown in Figure 1, Item 45 covers all other pieces.
D) As per Claim 4, Miller in view of Schiedegger teaches that the receiver is configured to receive the vent member (Miller: Figure 1, Item 10).
E) As per Claim 6, Miller in view of Schiedegger teaches that the plurality of attachment features include a plurality of slots that receive inwardly-extending pins of the hood (Miller: Figure 2, holes around outer edge receive fasteners from hood Item 45 that extend inward into the building).
F) As per Claim 7, Miller in view of Schiedegger teaches that the plurality of attachment features include a plurality of openings that receive inwardly extending-pins of the hood (Miller: Figure 2, holes around outer edge receive fasteners from hood Item 45 that extend inward into the building).
G) As per Claim 10, Miller in view of Schiedegger teaches that the hood includes a generally truncated shape that tapers inward to form a lower edge to an upper edge, the upper edge being narrower than the lower edge, and wherein the truncated shape is configured to provide a stacked configuration with respect to a plurality of hood enclosures (Miller: Figure 2, Item 45 has smaller upper edge and larger lower edge, which can be stacked).
Claim(s) 5 & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Schiedegger as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2007/0120036 A1 to Olle.
A) As per Claim 5, Miller in view of Schiedegger teaches all the limitations except that the fastener is a threaded fastener that extends through at least one of the fastening ends.
However, Olle teaches the fastener is a threaded fastener that extends through at least one of the fastening ends (Olle: Figure 1, Items 42, 44 & 52).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Miller in view of Schiedegger by having a bolt fastener through the two ends, as taught by Olle, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Miller in view of Schiedegger with these aforementioned teachings of Olle since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the fastener of Olle for the fastener of Miller in view of Schiedegger.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
B) As per Claim 8, Miller in view of Schiedegger teaches all the limitations except that the fastening ends include a plurality of apertures that are configured to receive the fastener to define the inner perimeter of the encircling position of the adapter strap.
However, Olle teaches the fastening ends include a plurality of apertures that are configured to receive the fastener to define the inner perimeter of the encircling position of the adapter strap (Olle: Figure 1, Items 42, 44 & 52).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Miller in view of Schiedegger by having a bolt fastener through the two ends, as taught by Olle, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Miller in view of Schiedegger with these aforementioned teachings of Olle since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the fastener of Olle for the fastener of Miller in view of Schiedegger.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A) US Patent Number 5,607,355 to Van Becelaere, drawn to an adapter strap with fastening ends
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762