DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 03/03/2026.
Claims 19-23 are currently pending and have been examined below. Claims 1-18 are cancelled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 3 seems to show different shape of the latch legs 108 compared to figures 4-5. See annotated figures below.
PNG
media_image1.png
456
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
498
543
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 19-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 9 of claim 19, “the wall portion” should read --the peripheral wall portion--.
In line 28 of claim 19, “the access opening” should read --the access port--.
In line 30 of claim 19, “the annular contact face” should read --the annular face--.
Note that these issues above are also present in claim 21.
In line 1 of claim 20, “The access panel of claim 20” seems that it should read --The access panel of claim 19--.
Appropriate correction is required. Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowen (US 0503079) in view of Cologna et al. (US 5034254) (hereinafter “Cologna”).
Claim 19
(Gowen discloses) An access panel (figures 1-4) for a housing of an exhaust fan (intended use; the apparatus of Gowen can be utilized with a housing of an exhaust fan) with an access port (hole shown in figure 1) through the housing, the housing having an exterior surface (surface of ‘u’) and an interior surface (surface of ‘a’), the access panel comprising:
a flexible, resilient primary seal (f) having a central floor (g) and a peripheral rim (Annotated figure 2 below) extending from the central floor, a combination of the central floor and the peripheral rim forming a central recess (recess at g), the peripheral rim of the primary seal has a peripheral wall portion (Annotated figure 2 below), an inboard lip (Annotated figure 2 below) extending inwardly from the peripheral wall portion, and an outboard lip extending outwardly from the wall portion to form an annular face (Annotated figure 2 below), the outboard lip has a cross-sectional thickness that decreases radially outward from the peripheral wall portion to an outer edge (Annotated figure 2 (II) below);
a secondary seal (e) positioned within and secured to the central recess (figure 2) so the inboard lip of the primary seal extends over an outer peripheral portion of the secondary seal (Annotated figure 2 below),
wherein the primary seal is made of a first resilient material (lines 48-52 of page 1 of the specification) and the secondary seal is made of a second resilient material (lines 48-52 of page 1 discussing the second seal being made of metal which is a resilient material);
a handle (v) coupled to the primary seal and the secondary seal (handle v is coupled to both seals by way of other elements in between) to manually bias the annular face of the primary seal against the interior surface of the housing (figure 2); and
a plurality of mounting brackets (j and the mounting bracket shown in Annotated figure 3 below) coupled to the primary seal and the secondary seal in an annular array about the handle (figure 3), each of the mounting brackets has a mounting plate (Annotated figure 3 below) and a latch arm (j) pivotally coupled to the mounting plate (figure 1) so the latch arm is movable between a released position (position of the arms in figure 1) wherein the latch arms are retracted toward the handle to provide clearance for the primary seal and the secondary seal to be folded upon themselves (figure 1) and inserted through the access opening (figure 1) and an engaged position (position of the arms in figure 2) wherein the latch arms are extended to exert a clamping force against the exterior surface of the housing (figure 2) that conforms the annular contact face of the primary seal to the interior surface of the housing (figure 2),
wherein each of the latch arms is movable between the released position and the engaged position independently of the other latch arms (figure 3 shows each arm having their own pivoting mechanisms).
Gowen fails to disclose:
(i) a flexible, resilient secondary seal.
Gowen is silent regarding:
(ii) wherein the second resilient material is more rigid than the first resilient material such that the secondary seal provides structural support to the primary seal.
(i) (However, Cologna teaches) a flexible, resilient washer seal (58; Cologna figure 6; lines 29-33 of col. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the secondary seal of Gowen such that it is flexible and resilient as taught by Cologna, with a reasonable expectation of success, to dampen noise and vibrations thus prolonging the lifecycle of the assembly and the structure to which the dual seal is installed and to provide sufficient flexibility to the secondary seal which is beneficial for when the device is being folded and installed.
(ii) However, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice, therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of the secondary seal such that it is made of a more rigid material than the resilient primary seal such that the secondary seal provides structural support to the primary seal, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing additional structural durability to the secondary seal without compromising its sealing benefits while also preventing it from breaking which would significantly decrease the effectiveness of the sealing of the access panel.
PNG
media_image3.png
484
722
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2
PNG
media_image4.png
477
810
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2 (II)
PNG
media_image5.png
541
653
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 3
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowen in view of Cologna, as applied to claim 19 above, in further view of Georgievski (US 8615949).
Claim 20
(Gowen, as modified above, discloses) The access panel of claim 20.
Modified Gowen fails to disclose wherein the latch arms are biased toward the primary seal in the engaged position.
(However, Georgievski teaches) wherein latch arms (2 and 23; Georgievski figure 1) are biased toward an engaged position (flat position; lines 47-48 of col. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the latches of modified Gowen with the biasing springs of Georgievski such that the latches are biased toward the primary seal, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing a biasing force to the latches and seals thus improving their seal against the surface.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowen (US 0503079) in view of Hansen (US 4776484) and in further view of Cologna et al. (US 5034254) (hereinafter “Cologna”).
Claim 21
(Gowen discloses) A housing having an exterior surface (surface of ‘u’) and an interior surface (surface of ‘a’), and an access port (opening in figure 1) through the housing; and
an access panel releasably mounted to a housing (figures 1-4) to seal an access port (hole shown in figure 1), the access panel comprising:
a flexible, resilient primary seal (f) having a central floor (g) and a peripheral rim (Annotated figure 2 above) extending from the central floor, a combination of the central floor and the peripheral rim forming a central recess (recess at g), the peripheral rim of the primary seal has a peripheral wall portion (Annotated figure 2 above), an inboard lip (Annotated figure 2 above) extending inwardly from the peripheral wall portion, and an outboard lip extending outwardly from the wall portion to form an annular face (Annotated figure 2 above), the outboard lip has a cross-sectional thickness that decreases radially outward from the peripheral wall portion to an outer edge (Annotated figure 2 (II) above);
a secondary seal (e) positioned within and secured to the central recess (figure 2) so the inboard lip of the primary seal extends over an outer peripheral portion of the secondary seal (Annotated figure 2 above),
wherein the primary seal is made of a first resilient material (lines 48-52 of page 1 of the specification) and the secondary seal is made of a second resilient material (lines 48-52 of page 1 discussing the second seal being made of metal which is a resilient material);
a handle (v) coupled to the primary seal and the secondary seal (handle v is coupled to both seals by way of other elements in between) to manually bias the annular face of the primary seal against the interior surface of the housing (figure 2); and
a plurality of mounting brackets (j and the mounting bracket shown in Annotated figure 3 above) coupled to the primary seal and the secondary seal in an annular array about the handle (figure 3), each of the mounting brackets has a mounting plate (Annotated figure 3 above) and a latch arm (j) pivotally coupled to the mounting plate (figure 1) so the latch arm is movable between a released position (position of the arms in figure 1) wherein the latch arms are retracted toward the handle to provide clearance for the primary seal and the secondary seal to be folded upon themselves (figure 1) and inserted through the access opening (figure 1) and an engaged position (position of the arms in figure 2) wherein the latch arms are extended to exert a clamping force against the exterior surface of the housing (figure 2) that conforms the annular contact face of the primary seal to the interior surface of the housing (figure 2),
wherein each of the latch arms is movable between the released position and the engaged position independently of the other latch arms (figure 3 shows each arm having their own pivoting mechanisms).
Gowen fails to disclose:
(i) An exhaust fan.
(ii) a flexible, resilient secondary seal.
Gowen is silent regarding:
(iii) wherein the second resilient material is more rigid than the first resilient material such that the secondary seal provides structural support to the primary seal.
(i) (However, Hansen teaches) An exhaust fan (Hansen figures 1-5), comprising:
a housing (10) having an exterior surface (exterior surface of 10 in Hansen figure 5), an interior surface (interior surface of 10 in Hansen figure 5), and an access port (30; Hansen figure 4) through the housing;
an access panel (14) releasably mounted to the housing to seal the access port (lines 61-68 of col. 2 to lines 1-11 of col. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the access panel of Gowen to the access panel of Hansen, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing a compression fit and also providing a weathertight seal around the perimeter of the access port. Additionally, this improves the marketability of the dual seal access panel of modified Gowen such that it can be used to different applications and different structures.
(ii) (However, Cologna teaches) a flexible, resilient washer seal (58; Cologna figure 6; lines 29-33 of col. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the secondary seal of Gowen such that it is flexible and resilient as taught by Cologna, with a reasonable expectation of success, to dampen noise and vibrations thus prolonging the lifecycle of the assembly and the structure to which the dual seal is installed and to provide sufficient flexibility to the secondary seal which is beneficial for when the device is being folded and installed.
(iii) However, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice, therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of the secondary seal such that it is made of a more rigid material than the resilient primary seal such that the secondary seal provides structural support to the primary seal, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing additional structural durability to the secondary seal without compromising its sealing benefits while also preventing it from breaking which would significantly decrease the effectiveness of the sealing of the access panel.
Claim 23
(Gowen, as modified above, discloses) The exhaust fan of claim 21.
Modified Gowen is silent regarding wherein the interior surface of the housing is curved.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to modify the interior surface of modified Gowen such that it is curved, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the interior surface conforms better with the folding seals of the access panel as such improving the weathertight sealing.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowen in view of Hansen in view of Cologna, as applied to claims 21 and 23 above, in further view of Georgievski.
Claim 22
(Gowen, as modified above, discloses) The access panel of claim 21.
Modified Gowen fails to disclose wherein the latch arms are biased toward the primary seal in the engaged position.
(However, Georgievski teaches) wherein latch arms (2 and 23; Georgievski figure 1) are biased toward an engaged position (flat position; lines 47-48 of col. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the latches of modified Gowen with the biasing springs of Georgievski such that the latches are biased toward the primary seal, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing a biasing force to the latches and seals thus improving their seal against the surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments directed to the claim objections have been considered.
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The responses below are directed to applicant’s arguments on pages 2-4 of the Remarks.
Regarding “The Gowen reference relates to a ship hull leak stopper utilizing a disk of soft India-rubber to plug a hole in flat armor-plating. Gowen does not disclose a peripheral rim with an outboard lip having a decreasing cross-sectional thickness”, as noted in the annotated figure 2(II) above, Gowen teaches this feature as such this was found unpersuasive.
Regarding “The proposed combination of Gowen and Cologna is technically inconsistent because Cologna is directed to a permanent, structural repair of composite panels. Cologna uses resin-impregnated fabric plies that are pressed against the panel as the resin cures, producing a flush, load-bearing patch. Once cured, the fastening bolt is cut off flush with the surface, making the installation irreversible without destroying the repair”, these are unpersuasive as none of the features above of Cologna were relied upon the rejection above nor in the previous rejection. For example, the combination does not rely on the resin-impregnated fabric plies nor the irreversible installation of the device of Cologna.
Regarding “A person of ordinary skill looking to create a serviceable access port would be discouraged from utilizing the teachings of Cologna, as doing so would result in a permanent seal that prevents subsequent access to the interior of the housing. Therefore, Cologna teaches away from the inventive concepts now recited in new claims 19 and 21”, as noted above none of the permanent installation features of Cologna was relied upon as such examiner finds this unpersuasive.
Regarding “The Examiner cited Georgievski for its teaching of spring-biased latches. However, Georgievski is directed to a wall repair device that uses a single central biasing means to snap two plate members into a flat position so they share the same plane. Georgievski fails to teach or suggest an array of independently movable latch arms configured to exert localized clamping forces to conform a flexible seal to a surface”, this too was found unpersuasive as the combination merely relies on the teachings of the biased latches of Georgievski. Examiner notes that Gowen teaches the array of independently movable latch arms.
Examiner also notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding “Finally, the inclusion of the Randall reference does not cure the deficiencies of the other cited art. While Randall may generally relate to exhaust fans, it fails to teach or suggest the specific dual-seal, where a secondary seal provides structural support to a primary seal”, this is moot as Randall was not relied upon in the rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK B PONCIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-4:00.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/PATRICK B. PONCIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634