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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner would like to remind the Applicant of 37 C.F.R. 1.56 and MPEP 2001 in regards to their duty to disclose information material to patentability
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 recites the limitation “a measurement of the rough opening”, where claim 3 ultimately depends from claim 1 which states a rough opening of the building. To obviate the objection the Examiner would suggest the Applicant amending claim 3 to recite “a measurement of the rough opening of the building” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the blade assembly includes a trailing edge”, where claim 15 ultimately depends from claim 1 which states ” wherein when in a closed position, a trailing edge of the blade assembly seals against the frame assembly to prevent light and airflow”. To obviate the objection the Examiner would suggest the Applicant amending claim 15 to recite “wherein the blade assembly includes the trailing edge”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
The term “rough opening of the building” in claims 1-5 & 20, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rough” 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. The Examiner is unclear as to what the metes and bounds are for the opening to be “rough”; it would seem that the application uses this term to relate the idea that a rough opening is to be a sort of “pre-existing” opening, however, this would seem to ignore the fact that any opening being claimed, is an opening comprising of a structure, that would need to exist to meet any limitation of an opening to begin with; meaning, anything considered to be opening at all would meet the limitation of a rough opening. Since the application does not outline the relativity of the roughness of the opening, the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand and opening that comprises of a structure is to meet the limitation of a “rough opening”. All dependent claims are similarly rejected for being dependent from a rejected claim.
Claim 10 (& dependent claim 11 from which derives this limitation) recites the limitation “wherein at least one chosen from the frame assembly and the blade assembly include hollow portions, which are at least partially hollow”, of which is unclear as to how the Applicant would define something as a “hollow portion”, (Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines Hollow: “having an unfilled or hollowed-out space within”)
and then in the very next statement, claim it is at least “partially” hollow, which would seem to go against the very definition of something being unfilled or hollowed out. It is also noted that claim 11 depends from claim 10 and further compounds the lack of clarity by claiming the “hollow portions” are at least partially filled with insulation; seemingly the opposite of hollow. To obviate the rejection the Examiner would suggest the Applicant remove limitations related to anything that would not qualify to the definition of hollow, or remove the requirement for the hollow limitation. All dependent claims are similarly rejection for being dependent form a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein at least one chosen from the cut top frame and the cut bottom frame have been cut to fit a measurement of the rough opening”, however, claim 3 depends from claim 2 which already claims:
wherein the top frame includes a cut top frame in which the top frame fits a measurement of the rough opening of the building,
wherein the bottom frame includes a cut bottom frame in which the bottom frame fits the measurement of the rough opening of the building
In this case, with either choice of the Markush claim, the Applicant has already elaborated on the selected outcome.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 12, 14, 16, & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tabor et al (US 11,131,478), hereinafter referred to as Tabor.
Regarding claim 1, Tabor (11,131,478) shows an air inlet for providing airflow between an exterior of a building and an interior of the building through a rough opening of the building, comprising:
a frame assembly including a top frame (1, Fig. 4/4A), a bottom frame (2, see Annotated Figure 1), and two frame endcaps (4, Fig. 5 – each end of the frame assembly comprises of two endcaps 4);
a blade assembly (10, Fig. 1) including a louver blade (15, Fig. 9) and two louver blade endcaps (13/14, Fig. 9);
a hinge (11, Fig. 3A) which connects the blade assembly to the bottom frame (see Annotated Figure 1) of the frame assembly (see Annotated Figure 1); and
wherein when in a closed position (Fig. 4/4A), a trailing edge of the blade assembly (see Annotated Figure 2) seals against the frame assembly (see Annotated Figure 2) to prevent light and airflow (Abstract – the trailing edge of the blade assembly is to seal with the housing when in the closed position), and when in an open position (Fig. 8), air enters through the frame assembly and is directed by a leading edge of the blade assembly into the building (Fig. 7, Abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
363
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 9, Tabor shows wherein at least one of the top frame, the bottom frame, the louver blade, and the hinge (11, Fig. 3A, Col. 5, Lines 7-11) include at least one of measurement markings, indentations, perforations, and non-uniform thickness at various lengths (Col. 5, Lines 7-11 – wherein at least one of the hinge 11 includes at least one of a non-uniform thickness at various lengths, having different thickness in the middle).
Regarding claim 12, Tabor shows wherein the at least one of the top frame (see Annotated Figure 2), bottom frame, and the louver blade endcaps includes a recessed groove (see Annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, Tabor shows wherein the hinge (11, Fig. 3A/7) is a continuous hinge extending from one of the two frame endcaps to the other of the two frame endcaps (Fig. 1/7), wherein the continuous hinge includes at least one of an upper T portion (see Annotated Figure 1) and a lower T portion (see Annotated Figure 1), and wherein at least one leading edge of the louver blade and the bottom frame includes a hinge groove (see Annotated Figure 1) for receiving the at least one of the upper T portion and the lower T portion of the continuous hinge (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Tabor shows wherein the frame endcaps include side walls (Fig. 1/3/6A – the frame endcaps include structure of side walls that are adjacent to the louver blade 15 of the louver assembly 10, of which prevents air leakage at various positions, as can be seen in Figs. 1, 3, & 6A) adjacent to the louver blade to prevent air leakage at various positions of the louver blade (Fig. 1/3/6A).
Regarding claim 17, Tabor shows wherein at least one of the louver blade (15, Fig. 6A/8), the top frame, the frame endcaps, and the hinge is at least partially curved to maximize air flow (Fig. 6A/8 – the louver blade 15 is at least partially curved to maximize airflow).
Regarding claim 18, Tabor shows wherein at least one of the top frame, the bottom frame, and the frame endcaps includes a flush mount flange (see Annotated Figure 2 – the Oxford English Dictionary defines Flange: “A widening or branching out; the part that widens”; the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand the identified element of the flush mount flange is a structure that widens out from the base frame portion to in order to be seated with the rough opening) and a base frame portion (see Annotated Figure 2), and
wherein the flush mount flange extends from the base frame portion for mounting the air inlet to an interior of the building (see Annotated Figure 2- Col. 4, Lines 28-29), and
wherein the air inlet extends into the interior of the building (Col. 4, Lines 28-29 – the device, and the structure that comprises of the air inlet, is located on the inside of the building, from the ceiling).
PNG
media_image3.png
366
968
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure A
Regarding claim 19, Tabor shows wherein no part of the air inlet is located within interior planar surface of a sidewall of the building (see Annotated Figure 3, Col. 4, Lines 28-29 – the air inlet, which exits below the top frame, has no part of it located within an interior planar surface of the sidewall of the building, as the top face of the device faces the rough opening of the sidewall of the building; the sidewall being the ceiling).
PNG
media_image4.png
532
423
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabor et al (US 11,131,478), hereinafter referred to as Tabor.
Regarding claim 2, Tabor shows wherein the top frame includes a cut top frame (1, Fig. 2/5) in which the top frame fits a measurement of the rough opening of the building (Fig. 2/5, Col. 4, Lines 28-30 – the top frame includes a cut top frame in which the cut top frame fits a measurement of the rough opening of the building, of which at least Col. 4, Lines 28-30 states Fig. 2 depicts the top face of the top frame faces the rough opening in the building in any suitable manner, of which the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand the cut top frame is to fit a measurement of the rough opening of the building in order to properly function), wherein the bottom frame includes a cut bottom frame (2, Fig. 3A/5) in which the bottom frame fits the measurement of the rough opening of the building (Fig. 2/5, Col. 4, Lines 28-29 – the bottom frame includes a cut bottom frame in which the cut bottom frame fits a measurement of the rough opening of the building, of which at least Col. 4, Lines 28-29 states Fig. 2 depicts the top face of the top frame, of which the cut bottom frame extends the length of, faces the rough opening in the building, of which the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand the cut bottom frame is to fit a measurement of the rough opening of the building in order to properly function), and wherein the two frame endcaps (4, Fig. 1) are connected to the cut top frame and the cut bottom frame (Fig. 1/5/7).
Regarding claim 2, and the limitations “wherein the top frame includes a cut top frame” and “wherein the bottom frame includes a cut bottom frame”, MPEP 2113.I. states “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”. In light of the structure of Tabor, the limitations of claim 2 which pertain to the cutting of the top frame and bottom frame of “wherein the top frame includes a cut top frame” and “wherein the bottom frame includes a cut bottom frame” have been given no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 3, Tabor shows wherein at least one chosen from the cut top frame and the cut bottom frame have been cut to fit a measurement of the rough opening (Fig. 2/5, Col. 4, Lines 28-30 – the top frame includes a cut top frame in which the cut top frame fits a measurement of the rough opening of the building, of which at least Col. 4, Lines 28-30 states Fig. 2 depicts the top face of the top frame faces the rough opening in the building in any suitable manner, of which the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand the cut top frame is to fit a measurement of the rough opening of the building in order to properly function; see the 112(d) rejection above).
Regarding claim 3, and the limitations pertaining to “the cut top frame and the cut bottom frame”, MPEP 2113.I. states “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”. In light of the structure of Tabor, the limitations of claim 3 which pertain to the cutting of the top frame and the bottom frame have been given no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 4, Tabor shows wherein the louver blade includes a cut louver blade (15, Fig. 9) in which the louver blade is cut to fit a measurement of the rough opening of the building (Fig. 1/2, Col. 4, Lines 28-30 – the louver blade includes a cut louver blade in which the louver blade is cut to fit a measurement of the rough opening of the building, of which at least Col. 4, Lines 28-30 states Fig. 2 depicts the top face of the top frame faces the rough opening in the building in any suitable manner, of which the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand the louver blade is cut to fit a measurement of the rough opening of the building in order to properly function), and wherein the two louver blade endcaps (13/14, Fig. 9) are connected to the cut louver blade (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 4, and the limitations pertaining to “a cut louver blade”, MPEP 2113.I. states “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”. In light of the structure of Tabor, the limitations of claim 4 which pertain to the cutting of the louver blade of “wherein the louver blade includes a cut louver blade” have been given no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 5, Tabor shows wherein the hinge includes a cut hinge (11, Fig. 3A) in which the hinge is cut to fit a measurement of the rough opening of the building (Fig. 2/3A/7, Col. 4, Lines 28-30 – the hinge includes a cut hinge in which the hinge is cut to fit a measurement of the rough opening of the building, of which at least Col. 4, Lines 28-30 states Fig. 2/3A/7 depicts the top face of the top frame faces the rough opening in the building in any suitable manner, of which the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand the hinge is cut to fit a measurement of the rough opening of the building in order to properly function), and
wherein the cut hinge connects the leading edge of the blade assembly to the bottom frame of the frame assembly (Fig. 2/3A – the cut hinge 11 connects the structure of the leading edge of the blade assembly 10, to the bottom frame of the frame assembly).
Regarding claim 5, and the limitations pertaining to “a cut hinge”, MPEP 2113.I. states “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”. In light of the structure of Tabor, the limitations of claim 5 which pertain to the cutting of the hinge of “wherein the hinge includes a cut hinge” have been given no patentable weight.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabor et al (US 11,131,478), hereinafter referred to as Tabor, in view of Johnson et al (US 8,202,146), hereinafter referred to as Johnson.
Regarding claim 6, Tabor shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including wherein at least one of the top frame, the bottom frame, the louver blade, and the hinge (11, Fig. 3A) are composed of at least one chosen from a material (Col. 5, Lines 7-11).
However, Tabor lacks showing wherein at least one of the top frame, the bottom frame, the louver blade, and the hinge are composed of at least one chosen from plastic, polymer, composite plastic material, or nonplastic material, which is easily cut with a blade.
Johnson (US 8,202,146), a ventilator for an HVAC system, is in the same field of endeavor as Tabor which is a ventilator for an HVAC system.
Johnson teaches wherein at least one of the top frame, the bottom frame, the louver blade (34, Col. 9, Lines 17-18), and the hinge are composed of at least one chosen from plastic, polymer, composite plastic material, or nonplastic material, which is easily cut with a blade (Col. 9, Lines 17-18 – the louver blade 34 might be made of a non-plastic material, of aluminum, which is a material that is easily cut with a blade).
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 louver blade of Tabor to incorporate the teachings of the louver blade of Johnson, which would provide a material of aluminum that is known for resisting corrosion for prolonged periods of time while also providing improved rigidity for the blade to maintain its shape over the devices’ lifespan.
Regarding claim 7, Tabor shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the air inlet.
However, Tabor lacks showing wherein the air inlet is completely composed of non-plastic material.
Johnson teaches wherein the air inlet (58, Fig. 2) is completely composed of non-plastic material (Col. 5, Lines 24-25 – the air inlet 58 is completely composed of non-plastic material, that of galvanized steel).
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 air inlet of Tabor, to incorporate the teachings of the air inlet of Johnson, which would provide a material of galvanized steel that is known for resisting rust for prolonged periods of time while also providing improved rigidity.
Regarding claim 8, Tabor shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 6 including the air inlet.
However, Tabor lacks showing wherein the air inlet is composed of rubber or galvanized steel.
Johnson teaches wherein the air inlet (58, Fig. 2) is composed of rubber or galvanized steel (Col. 5, Lines 24-25).
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 air inlet of Tabor, to incorporate the teachings of the air inlet of Johnson, which would provide a material of galvanized steel that is known for resisting rust for prolonged periods of time while also providing improved rigidity.
Claims 10-11 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabor et al (US 11,131,478), hereinafter referred to as Tabor, in view of Streicher (US 10,638,719).
Regarding claim 10, Tabor shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including wherein at least one chosen from the frame assembly and the blade assembly.
However, Tabor lacks showing wherein at least one chosen from the frame assembly () and the blade assembly include hollow portions, which are at least partially hollow.
Streicher (US 10,638,719), an inlet for a ventilating system, is in the same field of endeavor as Tabor which is an inlet for a ventilating system.
Streicher teaches wherein at least one chosen from the frame assembly () and the blade assembly include hollow portions, which are at least partially hollow (Col. 1, Lines 51-54 – the two frame endcaps 8, of the frame assembly, includes hollow portions, what are at least partially hollow before adding the foam inserts 9; see 112(b) rejection above).
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 frame assembly of Tabor to incorporate the teachings of the frame assembly and partially hollow portion of Streicher, which would minimize the amount of sweating the inlet will experience in the winter from condensation (Col. 1, Lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 11, Tabor shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 except wherein the hollow portions are at least partially filled with insulation.
Streicher teaches wherein the hollow portions are at least partially filled with insulation (9, Fig. 1, Col. 1, Lines 51-54 – the two frame endcaps 8, of the frame assembly, includes hollow portions, what are at least partially hollow before adding the foam inserts 9; see 112(b) rejection above).
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 frame assembly of Tabor to incorporate the teachings of the frame assembly and insulation of Streicher, which would minimize the amount of sweating the inlet will experience in the winter from condensation (Col. 1, Lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 20, Tabor shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the air inlet and the rough opening.
However, Tabor lacks showing wherein the air inlet is larger than the rough opening.
Streicher teaches wherein the air inlet is larger than the rough opening (Col. 2, Lines 1-2 / Col. 3, Lines 1-3 – the components of the device that comprise of the air inlet can be of different profiles and lengths so as to provide an inlet to be designed for openings of different sizes depending on the proper amount of air needed, of which different profiles and lengths can make the air inlet larger than the rough opening in the building to facilitate the proper amount of air).
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 air inlet of Tabor to incorporate the teachings of the air inlet and rough opening of Streicher, which would present a ventilation device with an air inlet to be made of different lengths to provide an air inlet of a size that would provide the proper amount of air needed given the size of the rough opening (Abstract).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabor et al (US 11,131,478), hereinafter referred to as Tabor, in view Hartman (US 2014/0130426).
Regarding claim 13, Tabor shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 12 including the recessed groove.
However, Tabor lacks showing wherein a weatherstrip material is installed in the recessed groove.
Hartman (US 2014/0130426), a device to assist with the HVAC for a building, is in the same field of endeavor as Tabor which is a device to assist with the HVAC for a building.
Hartman teaches wherein a weatherstrip material (38, Fig. 4b – element 38 is a weatherstrip seal) is installed in the recessed groove (Fig. 4b – at least element 38c of the weatherstrip 38 is installed in the recessed groove, as depicted in Fig. 4b).
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 recessed groove of Tabor to incorporate the teachings of the weatherstrip material of Hartman, which would provide a material for a device for a building that helps reduce the permeation of moisture vapor through the device (¶0016).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabor et al (US 11,131,478), hereinafter referred to as Tabor, in view Shao et al (US 2021/0190343), hereinafter referred to as Shao.
Regarding claim 15, Tabor shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including wherein the blade assembly includes a trailing edge (see Annotated Figure 2), wherein when in a closed position (see Annotated Figure 2), the frame assembly is closed by the blade assembly to prevent light and airflow through the air inlet (Fig. 3/4 - The Oxford English Dictionary defines Closed: “Entirely self-contained; esp. involving no reference to or permitting no interaction with anything external; not communicating with or influenced by others” see Figure B; to which the Examiner is taking the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand when something is known as closed, it already excludes any external influence or condition, such as when something is closed, as in when the blade assembly with its trailing edge are in the closed position with the frame assembly as Tabor states in Col. 3, Lines 17-20 states Figure 3 shows the closed position, it is by definition, preventing light and airflow through the inlet).
However, Tabor lacks showing wherein the blade assembly includes a trailing edge with a recess, and wherein when in a closed position, the frame assembly fits in the recess of the blade assembly.
Shao (US 2021/0190343), a ventilation device with a louver, is in the same field of endeavor as Tabor which is a ventilation device with a louver.
Shao teaches wherein the first assembly (Fig. 3/4 - elements 20 comprise of the first assembly and the second assembly, as they are closed against one another, as in Fig. 4, with the first ) includes an edge with a recess (Alpha, Fig. 3/4), and wherein when in a closed position, the second assembly (20, Fig. 3/4) fits in the recess (Alpha, Fig. 3/4 - element 62 of the second assembly fits in the recess Alpha of the first assembly) of the first assembly (Fig. 3/4).
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 frame assembly and blade assembly of Tabor to incorporate the teachings of the first assembly and the second assembly of Shao, which would provide a louver system that can be mounted in the wall of a building and provide an airtight system (¶0005).
PNG
media_image5.png
108
786
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure B
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762