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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has distinguished over the previous art rejection and after further search and consideration a new rejections ahs been written in view of Broberg (US 2,722,170), Lackey et al. (US 2013/0175355 A1) and Harcup et al. (US 2021//0387737 A1).
Applicant’s amendments to claims 14 and 18 have overcome the 112(b) rejections and they are therefore withdrawn.
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) 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broberg (US 2,722,170) in view of Lackey et al. (US 2013/0175355 A1) and Harcup et al. (US 2021//0387737 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Broberg discloses an air vent apparatus (Broberg G) comprising:
A vent housing body (Broberg G) defining a first sidewall and a second sidewall that define a longitudinal direction (see Broberg figure 1) therebetween, and a top wall and a bottom wall (see Broberg figure 3) that define a vertical direction therebetween, and a front and rear surface (see Broberg figure 3) that define a transverse direction therebetween, wherein the vent housing body defines an air passageway (passageway formed from rear to front face, see Broberg figure 3) that extends between at least a first open end and a second open end (front and rear faces each have an opening for airflow, see Broberg figure 3);
A grill (see Broberg figure3) that is formed as part of the vent housing body; and
At least one clip connector (Broberg 5 and 6) attached to the rear surface of the vent housing body (see Broberg figure 3), wherein the clip connector provides a snap-in attachment of the vent housing body to a wall (see Broberg figures 1 and 2) to effectuate a toolless installation of the air vent apparatus.
Broberg is silent regarding the grill being separate from the vent housing body and having a tab that is received in a slot formed in the vent housing body to pivotally connect the grill to the vent housing body and is further silent regarding the clip connectors extending transversely rearward from the rear surface of the vent housing body.
However, Lackey teaches an odor reduction device comprising a grill (Lackey 12) having a tab
(Lackey 68) that is received in a slot (Lackey 46) to pivotally connect the grill to the housing. A filter (Lackey 58) and scent media (Lackey 59) are received in the space between the grill (Lackey 12) and the main body (Lackey 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing by
modifying Broberg's air vent apparatus to incorporate Lackey's teachings of a separate grill having a hinge flange to allow access to place filters and scent media within the air vent apparatus to produce a predictable result of improving air quality and providing a scent to cover bad odors.
Further, Harcup teaches an air directing device (Harcup 500) for use in an aircraft comprising a plurality of clips (Harcup 504a) for providing snap-in attachment of the air directing device into a ceiling (Harcup [0079]) with each respective clip extending transversely rearward from the rear surface of the air directing device (see Harcup figures 18a and 18b) with a width wider than retention gaps (Harcup 310) to prevent the clips from being easily removed (Harcup [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Broberg’s air vent apparatus to incorporate Harcup’s teachings of clip connectors extending transversely rearward from a rear surface to produce a predictable result of making the clips harder to remove to prevent accidental removal of the air vent apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Broberg, Lackey, and Harcup as applied to claim 1 teaches the at least one clip connector is located at the first and second sidewalls (see Broberg figures 1 and 2).
Broberg, Lackey, and Harcup are silent regarding the clip connector being an upper clip located at the top wall of the vent housing body.
However, a court has held that a mere rearrangement of parts that does not modify the operation of the device cannot sustain a patent. (see MPEP § 2144.04 VI C)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to rearrange Broberg's clip connectors from the sidewalls to the top and bottom walls to secure a vent to a wall where the teeth necessary for securing the clip connectors cannot be installed in the sidewalls of the frame since it does not alter the operation of the air vent apparatus.
Regarding claim 3, Broberg, Lackey, and Harcup as applied to claim 2 teaches the clip connectors are centered (see Broberg figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, Broberg, Lackey, and Harcup as applied to claim 2 teach the clip arm of the upper clip connector (Harcup 504a) extends rearward in a transverse direction in a cantilevered manner from the rear surface of the vent housing to a terminal end of the clip arm (see Harcup figures 18A and 18B).
Regarding claim 6, Broberg, Lackey, and Harcup as applied to claim 5 teach the clips have a tapered surface (Harcup 510) that tapers from an edge to the terminal end (see Harcup figures 18A and 18B) on each side of the clip (Harcup [0080] discusses multiple protrusions on opposing sides of the clip) which will include both the upper and lower surfaces of the clip.
Regarding claim 8, Broberg, Lackey, and Harcup as applied to claim 1 teaches the at least one clip connector is clips located at the first and second sidewalls (see Broberg figures 1 and 2).
Broberg, Lackey, and Harcup are silent regarding the clip connector being a lower clip located at the bottom wall of the vent housing body.
However, a court has held that a mere rearrangement of parts that does not modify the operation of the device cannot sustain a patent. (see MPEP § 2144.04 VI C)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to rearrange Broberg's clip connectors from the sidewalls to the top and bottom to secure a vent to a wall where the teeth necessary for securing the clip connectors cannot be installed in the sidewalls of the frame since it does not alter the operation of the air vent apparatus.
Regarding claim 9, Broberg, Lackey, and Harcup as applied to claim 8 are silent regarding the at least one lower clip being two spaced apart lower clips.
However, Harcup further teaches a plurality of clips (Harcup 504a) that are spaced apart from one another in a longitudinal direction (see Harcup figure 18A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Broberg’s air vent apparatus to incorporate Harcup’s teaching of two spaced apart clips to produce a predictable result of increasing the retention force by increasing the number of clips and improving the distribution of retention force.
Regarding claim 10, Broberg, Lackey, and Harcup as applied to claim 9 teach the two lower clip connectors are on opposite sides of a center of the bottom wall (see Harcup figure 18A).
Regarding claim 14, Broberg, Lackey, and Harcup as applied to claim 8 teach a louvered grill (see Broberg figures 1-3) having a tab (Lackey 68) that is received in a slot (Lackey 46) to pivotally connect the grill to the housing.
Regarding claim 15, Broberg, Lackey, and Harcup as applied to claim 8 teach the clip arm of the lower clip connector (Harcup 504a) extends rearward in a transverse direction in a cantilevered manner from the rear surface of the vent housing to a terminal end of the clip arm (see Harcup figures 18A and 18B).
Regarding claim 16, Broberg, Lackey, and Harcup as applied to claim 15 teach the clips have a tapered surface (Harcup 510) that tapers from an edge to the terminal end (see Harcup figures 18A and 18B) on each side of the clip (Harcup [0080] discusses multiple protrusions on opposing sides of the clip) which will include both the upper and lower surfaces of the clip.
Regarding claim 17, Broberg, Lackey, and Harcup as applied to claim 16 teach a ledge on the clip arm (see Harcup figures 18A and 18B, ledge adjacent tapered surface 510) located above the edge of the downwardly facing surface, wherein the ledge is located between an end member and a terminal end member (see Harcup figures 18A and 18B), wherein the ledge is configured to engage one of the wall and the air duct after the toolless installation of the vent housing body (Harcup [0080]).
Regarding claim 18, Broberg, Lackey, and Harcup as applied to claim 1 teach a pair of clip connectors on two different sidewalls (see Broberg figures 1 and 2) providing snap in engagement with the air duct (see Broberg figures 1 and 2)in a toolless installation of the vent housing body and a louvered grill (see Broberg figures 1-3) having a tab (Lackey 68) that is received in a slot (Lackey 46) to pivotally connect the grill to the housing.
Regarding claim 19, Broberg, Lackey, and Harcup as applied to claim 18 teach a filter (Lackey 58) removably positioned between the louvered grill and the vent housing body (see Lackey figure 2).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broberg (US 2,722,170), Lackey et al. (US 2013/0175355 A1), and Harcup et al. (US 2021//0387737 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Meredith (US 6,234,893 B1).
Regarding claim 20, Broberg, Lackey, and Harcup as applied to claim 19 are silent regarding the use of a plate when the filter is removed to prevent airflow through the grill.
However, Meredith teaches the filter enclosure (Meredith 60) comprises a pair of plates (Meredith 64 and 66) that allow airflow through the filter in a first position (see Meredith figure 12) and block airflow in a second position (see Meredith figure 14). Examiner notes that Meredith's filter housing is capable of blocking the airflow in the second position when the filter is removed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Broberg and Lackey's air vent apparatus to incorporate Meredith's plate system to produce a predictable result of allowing the air vent to be selectively blocked when airflow is not required to improve efficiency of an HVAC system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, and 11-13 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Current prior art of record is silent regarding the clip connectors having a snap-in attachment with a T-shaped member as recited in claims 4 and 7 and is further silent regarding and snap-in attachment of a lower member as recited in claims 11-13.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights