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 1-10 are pending and have been examined in this application.
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, 3 & 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Number 2,480,562 to Ewing in view of US Patent Number 7,413,024 B1 to Simontacchi and further in view of US Patent Number 9,119,980 B2 to Stenseide.
A) As per Claim 1, Ewing teaches a venting system (Ewing: Figure 1), comprising:
an external wall of a building (Ewing: Figure 3, Item P), said external wall including a wall vent opening therethrough,
a vent positioned in the wall vent opening, comprising a frame (Ewing: Figure 1, Item 1) defining a central opening, a screen (Ewing: Figures 1 & 3, Item 4) within the frame and covering the central opening while allowing free flow of air therethrough,
the vent further including a plurality of parallel louvers (Ewing: Figures 1 & 3, Items 6) each extending at an oblique angle to the screen within the central opening, positioned toward exterior of the building from the screen.
Ewing does not teach the walls of the screen being coated with a layer of an intumescent material which closes the screen when subjected to heat produced by an external fire, and a protective top coat over the intumescent coating.
However, Simontacchi teaches the vent being self-closing (Simontacchi: Figure 5, Item 12), the walls of the screen being coated with a layer of an intumescent material which closes the screen when subjected to heat produced by an external fire.
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 Ewing by adding the screen structures, as taught by Simontacchi, 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 Ewing with these aforementioned teachings of Simontacchi with the motivation of preventing fire intrusion into the building.
Ewing in view of Simontacchi does not teach a protective top coat over the intumescent coating.
However, Stenseide teaches a protective top coat over the intumescent coating (Stenseide: Col. 4, lines 36-37).
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 Ewing in view of Simontacchi by adding a protective top coat, as taught by Stenseide, 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 Ewing in view of Simontacchi with these aforementioned teachings of Stenseide with the motivation of protect the intumescent material from weather damage.
B) As per Claim 3 & 5, Ewing in view of Simontacchi and Stenseide teaches a protective screen adjacent to and interior of the screen, having openings (Simontacchi: Figure 5, interior Item 56).
Ewing in view of Simontacchi and Stenseide does not explicitly teach that the openings are about 0.014 inch.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the openings about 0.014”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (screen with small holes), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that hole size is a result effective variable because the smaller the hole, the more objects cannot fit through but the more the airflow is throttled. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the hole size 0.014”, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
D) As per Claim 6, Ewing in view of Simontacchi and Stenseide teaches that a layer of hardware cloth on the exterior side of the screen (Simontacchi: Figure 5, exterior Item 56).
E) As per Claim 7, Ewing in view of Simontacchi and Stenseide teaches that the hardware cloth comprises woven synthetic material (Simontacchi: Figure 5, exterior Item 56; Col. 4, line 65).
F) As per Claim 8, Ewing in view of Simontacchi and Stenseide teaches all the limitations except that the hardware cloth has openings of about 1/8 inch.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the openings about 1/8”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (screen with small holes), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that hole size is a result effective variable because the smaller the hole, the more objects cannot fit through but the more the airflow is throttled. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the hole size 1/8”, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
G) As per Claim 9, Ewing in view of Simontacchi and Stenseide teaches that the screen comprises a honeycomb structure with a depth in the range of about 1/4 inch to 3/4 inch (Simontacchi: Claim 6).
H) As per Claim 10, Ewing in view of Simontacchi and Stenseide teaches that the wall is vertical and the parallel louvers are angled downwardly toward the exterior of the wall (Ewing: Figures 1 & 3, Items 6).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewing in view of Simontacchi and Stenseide as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2019/0177971 A1 to Outram.
A) As per Claim 2, Ewing in view of Simontacchi and Stenseide teaches all the limitations except explicitly that the protective top coat over the intumescent coating comprises a sprayed-on acrylic coating.
However, Outram teaches using an acrylic with the intumescent coating (Outram: Paragraph 0075).
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 Ewing in view of Simontacchi and Stenseide by having acrylic, as taught by Outram, 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 Ewing in view of Simontacchi and Stenseide with these aforementioned teachings of Outram 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 material of Outram for the material of Ewing in view of Simontacchi and Stenseide.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewing in view of Simontacchi and Stenseide as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2019/0383021 A1 to Thompson.
A) As per Claim 4, Ewing in view of Simontacchi and Stenseide teaches all the limitations except that the protective screen is a woven of stainless steel screen.
However, Thompson teaches the protective screen is a woven of stainless steel screen (Thompson: Paragraph 0006).
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 Ewing in view of Simontacchi and Stenseide by making the screen stainless steel, as taught by Thompson, 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 Ewing in view of Simontacchi and Stenseide with these aforementioned teachings of Thompson 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 screen material of Thompson for the screen material of Ewing in view of Simontacchi and Stenseide.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A) The Applicant asserts that there is no motivation to combine the Simontacchi with Ewing because neither reference suggests the combination. The Examiner notes that the motivation to combine need not come from the cited references but must have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, adding the screen structure to Ewing with an intumescent coating so that it also functions as a fire stop would certainly have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
B) The Applicant asserts that none of the art suggests a combination of angled louver vent with an intumescent coated screen on the inside of the vent. The Examiner notes that this argument appears assume all items of the claim must be taught by the same reference. The above rejection is a 103 rejection, requiring the above motivation to combine multiple pieces of prior art. In this case, when taken in combination, the prior art teaches all the limitations of the claims and therefore the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
C) The Applicant asserts that there is no motivation to combine Stenseide with Ewing and Simontacchi. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The motivation to combine need not come from the cited references but must have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, adding a protective top coat to the coating would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the motivation described above.
D) The Applicant asserts that have a intumescent coating on the screen of Ewing would change the principle operation of Ewing by stopping the airflow. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Adding a fire-safety mechanism to the vent of Ewing would not change the function of Ewing, but merely provide additional benefit should a fire be present.
E) The Applicant asserts that Simontacchi does not teach a protective screen as the structure cited does not describe the screen as should in Applicants Figure 4. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim merely recites a protective screen. Any protective screen covers that limitation. The size of the openings of the screen would have obvious to optimize through routine optimization as cited above.
F) The Applicant asserts that the screens of Simontacchi are located inside an interior duct and therefore do not teach a hardware cloth at the exterior of the screen. The Examiner notes that while the screen of Simontacchi is placed with inside the vent louvers of Ewing and one of the cloth screens would be on the exterior side of the intumescent screen. The Examiner further notes that the screen in Ewing is also on the interior of the building within the airflow path, certainly analogous to Simontacchi.
G) The Applicant asserts that having 1/8” holes is critical to the invention and therefore is not merely routine optimization. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s own disclosure states the holes can be various sizes (1/4” or 3/32”-1/4”). Clearly, 1/8” holes is not specifically critical to the invention and therefore would be obvious to optimize to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 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, 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights