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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 5/28/26 has been entered. Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are pending in the application. Application’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 1/28/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Hopkins does not teach a first tip and a second tip because it has rounded edges.
Examiner asserts that a rounded edge can be a tip. It is further noted that Applicant uses a flat edge as a tip and it is unclear to Examiner why a flat edge would be considered a tip while a rounded edge would not be considered a tip.
Applicant asserts that an actuator assembly is not taught because Hopkins is opened by gravity or airflow.
Examiner asserts that Applicants specification allows this especially per Paragraph 0063 which allows for manual input. Applicant is arguing features that are not claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-6, 8-9, 11-13, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. PGPUB 20110028080 to Hopkins et al. (Hopkins).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 11, Hopkins teaches a conduit body including an opening (coinduit is the interior of the sidewalls of 50, Figure 10); a ring disposed in the conduit body (any one of the individual units in the middle of 50, Figure 10 shown individually in Figure 1), the ring including a first vertical wall and a second vertical wall (20, Figure 1 also shown in Figure 10) , wherein the first vertical wall and the second vertical wall at least partially span across the opening (shown in Figures 1 and 10); a first blade disposed within an interior of the ring when in a closed position (22, Figures 1, 4, 8, and 10) and having a first tip and a second tip, wherein a distance from the first tip to the first vertical wall changes during rotation from the closed position to the open position (shown in Figure 2 which shows the distance of a first tip changing); a second blade disposed in the conduit body exterior of the ring (shown in Figure 10, any of the blades shown exterior to one individual unit cited); and an actuator assembly configured to rotate the first blade prior to rotating the second blade (Paragraph 0020 indicates that blades can be controlled individually).
Regarding claim 12, Hopkins teaches wherein the ring is a rectangular ring (shown in Figures 1 and 10).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Hopkins teaches a third blade disposed within the ring (shown in Figure 1 interior of a ring, also shown in Figure 10); and a fourth blade disposed in the conduit body exterior of the ring (any one of the blades shown in Figure 10 outside of the ring), wherein the actuator assembly is configured to rotate the first and third blades prior to rotating the second and fourth blades (Paragraph 0020 indicates that blades can be controlled individually).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Hopkins teaches wherein the ring includes a third vertical wall extending between the first blade and the third blade (the exterior of two units as shown in Figure 1 can be considered the ring which would include a vertical wall between the two units of which includes a plurality of blades on either side of the wall).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Hopkins teaches wherein a height of the first and second vertical walls is greater than or equal to a height of the first blade when in an open position (shown in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, Hopkins teaches wherein the conduit body is connectable to a duct (the unit 50 can be connected to a duct).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Hopkins teaches wherein the conduit body is connectable to a stack (the unit 50 can be connected to a stack).
Regarding claim 3, Hopkins teaches a second blade disposed in the conduit body between the first vertical wall and the second vertical wall, the second blade being rotatable from a closed to an open position (the second blade identified above is outside of a ring which includes a wall which can be considered to include first and second vertical walls, the blades are shown to open and close per Figure 2 and are disposed on all sides of the walls per Figure 10).
Regarding claim 6, Hopkins teaches an actuator assembly configured to open the third and fourth blades after the first and second blades are moved to the open position (Paragraph 0020 discloses operating the blades independently).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins in view of U.S. Patent 3366032 to Alamprese (Alamprese).
Regarding claim 10, Hopkins is silent on wherein a height of the first vertical wall is selected based on a rotational range of the first blade, and wherein the height is less than a width of the first blade.
Alamprese teaches wherein a height of the first vertical wall is selected based on a rotational range of the first blade, and wherein the height is less than a width of the first blade (Figure 2 shows the blade that is less than a width of the first blade). 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 teachings of Hopkins with the teachings of Alamprese to provide wherein a height of the first vertical wall is selected based on a rotational range of the first blade, and wherein the height is less than a width of the first blade. Doing so would be a simple change in size and result in different scale but no change in performance. (In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 are 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. The prior art does not provide a reasonable combination to teach “wherein the actuator assembly includes: a slot member attached to a corresponding shaft of the first blade, the second blade, the third blade, and the fourth blade, each slot member including a slot; and a linkage including a pin for each slot” in combination with the base claims of claims 7 and 14.
Claims 21-22 are allowed.
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 STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights