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
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, 12-14 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 assembly (fig. 5: 37) on a first surface (outer) of the window (14), a second vent frame (36) support assembly on a second surface of the window (inner side), the first vent frame assembly (37) comprises a fastening portion (left side 38 and the bolts 62) that extends through the vent window opening and the second vent frame assembly comprises a retaining portion (side of frame in contact with 38) forming a mating connection to rigidly attach the frame assemblies 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, the fastening portion (fig. 5: left side 38 and 62) of the first frame assembly is a fastener (because it fastens), and the retaining portion comprises a retaining element (side of the frame which is in contact with 38 and also nut 63) of the second frame assembly.
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 6/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues the withdrawal of claims 16 and 18-21. The Applicants arguments are a summary of the claim limitations and state the claims further limit the independent claim 1. This is not persuasive since merely limiting claim 1 is not an adequate reason for traversal and rejoinder.
The Applicant argues the rejection of the previous office action by summarizing the claim limitations and stating the Examiner must identify each and every element. However, the Applicant does not list which element has been overlooked by the Examiner or how the prior art is deficient in disclosing the claimed limitations of the application. Regarding the recent claim amendments, such as claims 1 and 17, these are addressed in the new action above.
Regarding the rejection of claims 4, 9-11 and 15, the Applicant relies on the limitations of claim 1, which have been addressed above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights