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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 16 and 18-21 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 16 includes the limitation “a fixed vent window” which was not previously examined and is a new embodiment.
Claim 18 recites protruding and receiving portions of the frames, appearing to be a different embodiment. Additionally, “protruding” and “receiving” are not in the specification. Claim 19 depends from 18
Claim 20 recites a guide structure to guide sliding movement parallel to the pane, which appears to be a separate embodiment than that of a gliding pane. Additionally, the limitation “sliding” and “parallel” are not in the specification. Claim 21 depends from 20.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 16 and 18-21 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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, 3, 5-8, 12, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,797,791 to Humphrey et al.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Humphrey discloses a vehicle window with main window (fig. 3: 14) and vent window (fig. 4: 30), mounted to the main window, a movable vent window pane (30) which may open and close, a first vent frame support (fig. 4: 37) on a first surface (outer) of the window, a second vent frame (36) support on a second surface of the window (inner side), the first and second frames rigidly attached together and they fasten each other at, and to, the window. Also, the frames are press fit (pressed together by fasteners (62)) and pressed portions of 37 into 36 by use of the fastener which presses more as it is fastened tighter.
Regarding claim 3, a fastener (62) is on the side of the first frame and is secured to the second frame by a retaining element (63).
Regarding claim 5 and 7, Humphrey discloses the vent capable of glidingly pivot open (fig. 4: see C glide open via pivot (pivot on 28, fig. 5) via a guide rail (32).
Regarding claim 6, a guide rail 32 is provided and integrated with the first frame.
Regarding claim 8, a seal (64) is between the first frame and the window.
Regarding claim 12, the second frame may inherently be detached.
Regarding claim 13, the second frame may inherently be locked permanently to the first frame.
Regarding claim 14, a vehicle is claimed for use with the vent and window (abstract).
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,797,791 to Humphrey et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,667,659 to Heidman.
Regarding claim 4, Humphrey discloses a locking pin (62) but not a snap in counterpart for the pin. Heidman discloses a window vent having a snap fit (column 4, lines 48-51). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Humphrey by adding a snap closure as disclosed by Heidman in order to more easily close the vent.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,797,791 to Humphrey et al.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, the sealing element of Humphrey is disclosed as anything suitable such as an epoxy (column 5, lines 39-54), but not specifically a rubber or foam layer. The Examiner takes official notice that epoxy is a form of rubber and it would have been obvious to one at the time of filing to use a rubber seal as rubber is a suitable and well known gasket material.
Regarding claim 10, a second seal between second surface and second frame is not disclosed by Humphrey. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an extra seal as that between first surface and first frame, since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The use of an extra seal would create a more weather resistant seal.
Regarding claim 15, an aircraft such as a rotorcraft is not disclosed. However, Humphrey discloses the use of the vent with a “vessel wherein vented window assemblies are used” (column 1, lines 33-45). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the vent with a rotorcraft and could be a cabin vented window, as there is a need for vented air would make occupancy comfortable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues the window assembly of Humphrey does not disclose a press fit connection of frame members from both sides of the window. However, the Applicant should note that there are no structural limitations in the claims which specifies what type of press fit is claimed. The Examiner looks to the claims broadly and the frame members of Humphrey are literally pressed together by the use of fasteners. As seen in figure 4 of Humphrey, fasteners 62 and 63 are literally pressing the halves of the assembly together. Without a pressing fit of both halves, the window vent would fail. Regarding the limitation of fastening at the vent window, the fastening portions are adjacent to the vent window as the limitation of “at” does not specify where on the vent window. The entire assembly may be construed as “at” the window since there is no structural connection claimed as to locate where on the vent window. Also, is should be noted that the frame assemblies surround the vent and are considered “at” the vent window, since they are not away from the vent window, which would render Humphrey unusable. Regarding the rejection of claim 4 with Humphrey in view of Heidman, the Applicant argues this is not obvious. The Applicant also argues that Heidman does not “disclose or suggest modifying Humphrey’s threaded fastener arrangement”. The rejection above merely adds a snap fit as Heidman teaches the use of such a fastener in such windows and the Applicant does not state why the references are not combinable. Regarding the new claims added, these are addressed 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 extension fee 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 Basil Katcheves whose telephone number is (571)272-6846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm 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, Brian Glessner can be reached on (571)272-6754. 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.
/BASIL S KATCHEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633