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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 4/22/26 has been entered. Claims 13, 15, and 17-22 are pending in the application. Application’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 1/22/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13, 15, and 17-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new combination of art was applied to teach the newly amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13, 15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites “substantially”. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is further noted that the structure which produces a substantially parallel flow is angled significantly from parallel and there is no disclosure of the angle of the structure that allows a substantially parallel flow. It is unclear when a flow is considered substantially parallel and what structure would produce this flow. For examination purposes Examiner will consider a structure with an angle or curve to meet the claim limitation.
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.
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) 13, 15, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6227962 to Orendorff (Orendorff) in view of U.S. PGPUB 20150087217 to Switzer et al. (Switzer).
Regarding claim 13, Orendorff teaches a one-piece frame (12, Figure 1) comprising a substantially planar face plate (shown around the sides of 12, Figure 1) which defines an elongate axis of the vent structure and a longitudinally elongate vent opening (shown in Figure 1); and a series of fixed-position angularly oriented planar vanes unitarily joined to the planar face plate as a one-piece structure therewith, wherein each of the vanes extends latitudinally across the vent opening (vanes 20 on one side of the center of the device, Figures 1 and 5), and wherein each of the vanes has a widthwise dimension between leading and trailing edges thereof such that the trailing edges of each vane extends beyond a latitudinal plane defined by a respective leading edge of an immediately adjacent one of the vanes so as to unidirectionally vent air from the vent structure in an aftward direction which is substantially parallel to the elongate axis of the vent structure (shown in Figures 5a-5c where air outlets substantially parallel to the elongate axis. It is also noted that this is an intended use limitation because the direction of the air is dependent on the structure and conditions outside of the claimed structure because this limitation is claiming a result of structure and not imparting direct characteristics of the structure itself).
Orendorff is silent on the vanes being curvilinear.
Switzer teaches curvilinear vanes (shown in Figures 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Orendorff with the teachings of Switzer to provide curvilinear vanes. Doing so would be a simple change in shape and/or would improved the appears of the grill and inhibit attenuation of noise.
Regarding claim 15, Orendorff teaches wherein each of the vanes extends latitudinally across the vent opening and are unitarily joined to opposed side supports of the frame (shown in Figures 1 and 5 with vertical side supports shown in 2, 3, and 5).
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Orendorff teaches wherein each of the vanes has a convex curvilinear cross-sectional geometry (shown in Figures 1-3 of Switzer).
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of Orendorff teaches wherein each of the vanes is non-uniformly curvilinear (shown in Figures 1-3 of Switzer, each vane has a different radius at different points).
Regarding claim 20, Orendorff is silent on wherein the frame includes a mounting flange bounding the vent opening and unitarily joined to and extending from a rear surface of the face plate.
Switzer teaches wherein the frame includes a mounting flange bounding the vent opening and unitarily joined to and extending from a rear surface of the face plate (52 and/or 50, Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Orendorff with the teachings of Switzer to provide wherein the frame includes a mounting flange bounding the vent opening and unitarily joined to and extending from a rear surface of the face plate. Doing so would allow the device to be held in place securely.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orendorff in view of Switzer and U.S. Patent 1462343 to Jenkins (Jenkins).
Regarding claim 18, Orendorff is silent on wherein each of the vanes is uniformly curvilinear.
Jenkins teaches wherein each of the vanes is uniformly curvilinear (Figures 5-7 show this shape). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Orendorff with the teachings of Jenkins to provide wherein each of the vanes is uniformly curvilinear. Doing so would be a simple change in shape.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orendorff in view of Switzer and U.S. PGPUB 20080119127 to Stewart (Stewart).
Regarding claim 21, Orendorff is silent on wherein the frame includes a longitudinally extending central rib, and wherein the vanes include vane pairs that unitarily extend between the central rib and an adjacent portion of the frame.
Stewart teaches wherein the frame includes a longitudinally extending central rib (seen in the center of 100 in Figure 1), and wherein the vanes include vane pairs that unitarily extend between the central rib and an adjacent portion of the frame (vane pairs seen in Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Orendorff with the teachings of Stewart to provide wherein the frame includes a longitudinally extending central rib, and wherein the vanes include vane pairs that unitarily extend between the central rib and an adjacent portion of the frame. Doing so would increase the strength of the vanes allowing them to be shorter.
Regarding claim 22, the modified device of Orendorff wherein the vane pairs form a V-shaped series of curvilinear vanes which allow multidirectional venting of air (Figure 1 of Stewart shows the v shape).
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 STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 at 574-272-6460. 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, 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights