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 .
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shepherd (US 2,900,892).
In re Claims 1 and 17, Shepherd discloses a ventilation system (figs 1 – 5) comprising:
a base unit (fig 2: (10), annotated, below) having a mounting platform (as seen in figs 1 - 3) for connecting the base unit to a surface (12) having a surface opening (14), the base unit having a base collar (30/38) extending away from the mounting platform, the base collar forming a perimeter of a base opening through the base unit that corresponds to the surface opening;
PNG
media_image1.png
417
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a fan unit (as seen in fig. 3) comprising a fan housing (48) and a fan (26), the fan housing configured to receive air through an inlet and expel the air through an outlet (col 4, lns 50 – 60), the fan capable of connecting to a power source (apparent) that enables the fan to move the air from the inlet to the outlet; and
a connection interface ((78/slot in 44), col 5, lns 43 – 53) having a base feature (“slots” in (44)) and a fan housing feature (78), the base feature integrated into the base unit (10), the fan housing feature (78) integrated (“pivotally mounted”) into the fan unit, the base feature and the fan housing feature capable of detachably connecting together to secure the fan unit to the base unit (col 5, lns 49 – 53);
wherein the connection interface (78/slot in 44) is a quick connect interface (a “wingnut” has been understood to be a quick connect interface, as no tools are required for its use.)1.
Regarding “the fan housing feature integrated into the fan unit”, in that Shepherd discloses “Instead of holes 46, it will of course be apparent that wing nuts 78 could be pivotally mounted on hood 48 to swing into and out of outwardly opening slots in horizontal ears 44”, it has been understood that the fan housing feature (78) is integrated into the fan unit
In re Claim 2, Shepherd discloses wherein the base feature (“slots” in (44): col 5, lns 52 – 53) is mounted to the base collar (30/38).
In re Claim 3, Shepherd discloses wherein the base collar (30/38) further comprises a flange (34/40) around the base collar at an opposite end of the base collar from the mounting platform (col 3, lns 37 - 47); and the base feature (“slots” in (44)) is mounted to the flange.
In re Claim 12, the system of Shepherd has been discussed (In re Claim 1, above), wherein the fan housing (48) comprises a fan housing base (38/40) and the fan housing feature (78) is integrated in the fan housing base (as seen in fig 2) (col 3, lns 34 – 51; col 5, lns 43 – 53: the fan housing feature 78 swings into and out of slots in element 44).
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 4 – 6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Shepherd (US 2,900,892).
In re Claims 4 and 6, the system of Shepherd has been discussed, wherein:
the base feature (“slots” in (44)) further comprises a receptacle, capable of receiving a detent, in the base collar, and
the fan housing feature (78) of the connection interface further comprises a detent extending from the fan housing towards the mounting platform.
Accordingly Shepherd lacks wherein:
the base feature further comprises a detent extending from the base collar away from the mounting platform, and
the fan housing feature of the connection interface further comprises a receptacle capable of receiving the base feature of the connection interface
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the known elements of a detent in a housing feature and a receptacle in a base feature in a configuration recognized as functionally equivalent, such that the system comprises a detent in a base feature and a receptacle in a housing feature, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Further, shifting the position of the detent would not modify the operation of the system.
The proposed system would yield wherein the base feature further comprises a detent extending from the base collar away from the mounting platform.
In re Claim 5, Shepherd discloses wherein the detent (fig 2: (78)) further comprises a detent body and a detent head (annotated, below), the detent head being larger than the detent body.
PNG
media_image2.png
206
278
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 15, the system of Shepherd has been discussed (In re Claim 1, above) wherein the fan housing (48) further comprises an airflow diverter (54) for guiding the air from the inlet (14) to the outlet (col 3, ln 65 – col 4, ln 3, col 4, lns 53 – 60), the airflow diverter further (54) comprises an inner region and an outer region (as seen in fig 3), the inner region configured adjacent to the inlet (14), the outer region configured adjacent to the outlet (col 4, lns 69 – 75).
PNG
media_image3.png
339
1070
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation, “the airflow diverter configured to be ovoidal in shape”, while Shepherd does not explicitly state that the airflow diverter (54) positioned within the interior of the hood (48) together comprise a shape that is ovoidal2, when the section of the airflow diverter is seen in cross section it can be seen that such a shape is formed. Additionally, Shepherd states that “ the profile of my novel ventilator is so reduced in elevational area and in height that strong winds have much less tendency to loosen it from its fastenings on the roof” ( col 5, lns 14 – 16 ); it appears that a reduction in height would contribute to a more ovoidal shape when compared to a hood with a comparatively increased height, as seen above in the “hypothetical hood”.
Claims 7 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Shepherd (US 2,900,892), in view of Castello et al (GB 1270228).
In re Claim 7, the system of Shepherd has been discussed (In re Claim 6, above) wherein the receptacle (“slot”) defines an entry region (inherent), the entry region capable of receiving the base feature (78) (col 5, lns 49 – 53).
Shepherd lacks wherein the receptacle defines:
the entry region with a transition region, and a locking region,
the entry region capable of receiving the base feature, the transition region capable of guiding the base feature from entry region to the locking region, and the locking region capable of securing the base feature in the receptacle.
However, the technique of providing wherein a ventilation system comprises a connection interface that is a quick connect interface is known in the mechanical arts; provided as evidence is Castello et al.
Castello et al teaches a ventilation system, comprising a quick connect interface having a base unit (figs 3, 4: (26)) comprising a base feature (30), and a housing (figs 2, 5: (15)) comprising a receptacle feature (figs 2, 5: (19))3,
the base feature (figs 3, 4: detent (30)) integrated into a base unit (26), the base feature and the housing feature (fig 5: (19)) capable of detachably connecting together;
the base feature (30) is mounted to a base collar (28/29), the base collar further comprises a flange (28) around the base collar, and the base feature (30) is mounted to the flange (28)4;
the base feature (30) further comprises a detent (as seen in figs 2 – 4) extending from the base collar (28/29)5, the detent further comprises a detent body (30b) and a detent head (30a), the detent head being larger than the detent body6 (pg 3, lns 95 – 125);
the receptacle feature (figs 2, 5: receptacle (19)) of the connection interface is integrated into a housing (15) base, the receptacle feature of the connection interface further comprises a receptacle (as seen in figs 2, 5) capable of receiving the base feature of the connection interface7 (pg 3, lns 51 – 55, lns 107 – 125),
the receptacle defines an entry region (19a), a transition region (19a ↔ 19b), and a locking region (19b), the entry region capable of receiving the base feature (30), the transition region capable of guiding the base feature from entry region (19a) to the locking region (19b), and the locking region capable of securing the base feature in the receptacle8 (pg 3, lns 13 – 63).
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 system of Shepherd, as taught by Castello et al, such that the receptacle defines:
an entry region, a transition region, and a locking region,
the entry region capable of receiving the base feature, the transition region capable of guiding the base feature from entry region to the locking region, and the locking region capable of securing the base feature in the receptacle,
for the benefit of providing a connection assembly whose detent head will engage and lock the base unit and the housing base together, reducing air leakage therebetween.
In re Claims 8 and 9, the proposed system has been discussed, wherein Castello et al teaches:
the base feature (30) further comprises an incline (on (30a): pg 3, lns 125 - 129) that guides the base feature (30) into the locking region (19a); wherein
the incline (on 30a) is oriented to pull the base unit (26) and the housing unit (15) together as the base feature moves into the locked region (pg 3, ln 125 – pg 4, ln 4).
Accordingly, Castello et al lacks wherein:
the transition region (19a ↔ 19b) further comprises the incline that guides the base feature into the locking region.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange known elements of a connection interface, such as an incline, wherein a housing receptacle providing the incline, in lieu of a base unit providing the inline, the rearranged configuration recognized as functionally equivalent, the system comprises an incline that guides the base feature into the locking region of the housing feature, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Further, shifting the position of the detent would not modify the operation of the system.
The proposed system would yield wherein:
the transition region further comprises an incline that guides the base feature into the locking region
the incline is oriented to pull the base unit and the fan unit together as the base feature moves into the locked region.
In re Claim 10, the proposed system has been discussed (In re Claim 7, above), wherein Castello et al discloses the base feature of the connection interface further comprises a catch (locking teeth 30a’) configured to prevent the base feature from backing out of the locking region (19b) (pg 2, lns 63, 120 – 125) after passing a predetermined position.
Accordingly, Castello et al lacks wherein the fan housing feature of the connection interface further comprises a catch configured to prevent the base feature from backing out of the locking region after passing a predetermined position.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the known elements of a catch
from a base feature of a base unit,
to a housing feature of a housing unit,
in a configuration recognized as functionally equivalent, such that the system comprises an incline that guides the base feature into the locking region of the housing feature, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Further, shifting the position of the catch would not modify the operation of the system.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Shepherd (US 2,900,892), in view of Boehling et al (US 2010/0304660).
In re Claim 11, the system of Shepherd has been discussed, but lacks wherein the fan unit further comprises one or more solar cells mounted on top of the fan housing and electrically connected to the fan; and the power source further comprises the one or more solar cells
Boehling et al teaches a ventilation system (fig 1: (11)) comprising a fan unit (13) and a fan housing (12) , wherein the fan unit further comprises one or more solar cells (23) mounted on top of the fan housing (12) and electrically (via (28)) connected to the fan (fig 2) [0012 – 0015]; and the power source further comprises the one or more solar cells (23).
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 system of Shepherd, as taught by Boehling et al, such that the fan unit further comprises one or more solar cells mounted on top of the fan housing and electrically connected to the fan; and the power source further comprises the one or more solar cells, for the benefit of minimizing the cost of operation of the fan.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Shepherd (US 2,900,892), in view of Dufour (US 5,651,732).
In re Claims 13 and 14, the system of Shepherd has been discussed (In re Claim 1, above), but lacks wherein:
the base collar of the base unit further comprises a detachable riser, and
the base feature is mounted to the detachable riser.
However, the technique of providing wherein a ventilation system comprises a detachable riser is known in the mechanical arts; provided as evidence is Dufour.
Dufour teaches a leak-proof venting system (figs 2, 4: (25)), the system comprising:
a first duct length (1), the first duct length having a male end (3) and a female end (5), the male end defining a first male half (19), the female end defining a first female half (13/15)
a second duct length (1’), the second duct length having a male end (3’) and a female end (5’), the male end defining a second male half (19’), the female end defining a second female half (13’/15’)
the first male half (19) is coupled to the second female half (137/15’) by insertion and twisting of the male and female end together (col 3, Ins 17 — 20).
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 system of Shepherd as taught by Dufour, such that the system comprises:
the base collar of the base unit further comprises a detachable riser,
the base feature is mounted to the detachable riser.
thereby extending the linear dimension (distance) of the ventilation system with connection fittings (col 2, Ins 31, 32), for the benefit of a system customization without requiring tools, such that the system elements can be safely coupled/uncoupled and modified to accommodate the installed conditions.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Shepherd (US 2,900,892), in view of Stauter et al (US 2017/0102007).
In re Claim 16, the system of Shepherd has been discussed (In re Claim 1, above), but lacks wherein the airflow diverter further comprises one or more vanes for directing the air from the inlet to the outlet. However, such a technique is known in the airflow arts as evidenced by Stauter et al.
Stauter et al teaches a fan assembly (figs 5 – 7: (26)) comprising a fan (74/79), a fan housing (81), a fan housing base (77), fasteners [0048], and an airflow diverter (83), wherein the airflow diverter further comprises one or more vanes (86) [0050] for directing the air from an inlet (82) to an outlet (88).
PNG
media_image4.png
487
697
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Shepherd as taught by Stauter et al, such that the system comprises vanes for directing the air from an inlet to an outlet, for the benefit of transforming swirl kinetic energy in the airflow into static pressure rises across the outlet guide vanes [0051], to improve fan motor efficiency.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,788,744. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, as seen in the table below.
Application 18/375541.
U.S. Patent No. 11,788,744
Claim 1 is unpatentable over…
Claim 1, which recites the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Claim 1 of ‘744 includes the limitations of claim 12 of the instant application (a fan housing base and quick connect interfacing) and the limitations of claim 17 of the instant application (quick connect interface, which is a type of “connection”)
Claims 2 – 11 and 12; and Claims 13 - 16 are unpatentable over…
Claims 3 – 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 13, 2, and 1; and Claims 7 - 10
Claim 17, dependent from claim 1, is unpatentable over …
Claim 1
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.
An example of such pertinent prior art includes Schreiber (US 2011/0219953) who discloses a ventilation system (200) comprising:
a quick connect interface [0020 – 0022] having a base feature (306) and a housing feature (302), the base feature and the housing feature capable of detachably connecting together to secure elements of the ventilation system;
the base feature comprises a base collar (as seen in figs 3, 4), the base collar further comprises a flange around the base collar and the base feature is mounted to the flange;
the base feature (306) further comprises a detent (314) extending from the base collar;
the housing feature (302) of the quick connect interface further comprises a receptacle (308) capable of receiving the base feature (306) of the quick connect interface, the receptacle defines an entry region (310), a transition region, and a locking region (312), the entry region capable of receiving the base feature [0020], the transition region capable of guiding the base feature from entry region to the locking region, and the locking region capable of securing the base feature in the receptacle (308).
PNG
media_image5.png
491
1020
media_image5.png
Greyscale
An example of such pertinent prior art includes Whitehead (US 2018/0216845) who discloses a ventilation system (figs 1 – 10 : (100)) comprising a plurality of separable components, the separable components comprising a housing (110), a base unit (105) and raised flange (200), a first riser (300), and a second riser (700),
any attachment means (e.g., male to female connections, bayonet connections, snaps, or the like) may be utilized by the ventilation system in order for the base unit (105) to receive a removable riser (300, 700). [0036]
PNG
media_image6.png
292
622
media_image6.png
Greyscale
each separable component may be defined to connect to one another via a snapping connection. By way of example, a bottom rim of a second separable component may be dimensioned such that the third separable component may partially be inserted into the second separable component and snap into a locked position. Such a snapping connection may also restrict movement of connected separable components. [0054]
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to (she/her) Frances F. Hamilton 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 all 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 Claim 17
2 [0136]
3 While these are the limitations of claim 6, Castello et al has not been relied upon to teach these features but have been included for mapping clarity.
4 While these are the limitations of claim 3, Castello et al has not been relied upon to teach these features, but have been included for mapping clarity.
5 While these are the limitations of claim 4, Castello et al has not been relied upon to teach these features, but have been included for mapping clarity.
6 While these are the limitations of claim 5, Castello et al has not been relied upon to teach these features but have been included for mapping clarity.
7 claim 6
8 claim 7
Prosecution Insights