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 .
Examiner notes the current office action supercedes the notice of allowance dated 8-11-2026, and claims 1-20 are examined herein against the prior art of record.
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.
Claims 1-9,11,18,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Vokes(1198170).
Vokes in figures 1 and 2 teaches an apparatus for obstructing the passage of debris and providing ventilation , the apparatus comprising a body(crescent shaped body 1); and a plurality of tines(tines 2) extending from the body, the tines including a structure capable of flexing(column 2 lines 94-95 stating the tines could be bent into a desired shape) , the tines including channels between the tines allowing for ventilation, wherein the body is arcuate and the plurality of tines extends inwardly from the inner circumference of the body. Examiner notes the limitations in the preamble stating “for obstructing the passage of debris and providing ventilation through a region between a first object and a second object” are not given patentable weight for prior art analysis, wherein “a first object and a second object” are not a structural part of the claimed “apparatus”, and the extended tines of Vokes and spacing between the tines provides a capability of obstructing a passage of debris when the tines are pressed onto a surface.
With regards to claim 2 , Vokes further teaches flexing of the tines is constrained to a plane. Examiner notes the limitations “ in use” are not given patentability for prior art analysis, wherein the claimed “apparatus” is analyzed solely on the structural elements claimed , and wherein the tines of the apparatus of Vokes are only required to be capable of flexing in a predetermined direction.
With regards to claim 3 , Vokes further teaches wherein elongate axes of the plurality of tines define the plane.
With regards to claim 4 , Vokes further teaches wherein each tine of the plurality of tines flexes in a predetermined direction. Examiner notes the limitations “ in use” are not given patentability for prior art analysis, wherein the claimed “apparatus” is analyzed solely on the structural elements claimed, and wherein the tines of the apparatus of Vokes are only required to be capable of flexing in a predetermined direction.
With regards to claim 5 , Vokes further teaches wherein the body is substantially semi-circular.
With regards to claim 6 , Vokes further teaches wherein the tines are angled acutely with respect to the body(figure 2).
With regards to claim 7 , Vokes further teaches wherein the plurality of tines comprises tines of different lengths(figure 2).
With regards to claim 8 , Vokes further teaches wherein at least one length of at least one of the plurality of tines increase towards a central region of the body(figure 2).
With regards to claim 9 , Vokes further teaches wherein one or more tines extending from a region of the body distal from a central region of the body have a length shorter than tines extending from a non-distal region of the body(figure 2).
With regards to claim 11 , Vokes further teaches wherein one or more tines of the plurality of tines comprise portions angled differently with respect to the body from which the one or more tines extend.
With regards to claim 18 , Vokes further teaches wherein the second object is a post, and wherein the post has a circular, oval, square, rectangular, hexagonal, or octagonal cross-section. Examiner notes the claimed limitations to the structure of the “post” are not given patentable weight for prior art analysis, wherein the claimed “second object” is not a structural part of the claimed “apparatus”.
With regards to claim 19 , Vokes further teaches wherein the first object is a 4G or 5G communication device. Examiner notes the claimed limitations to the structure of the “4G or 5G communication device” are not given patentable weight for prior art analysis, wherein the claimed “first object” is not a structural part of the claimed “apparatus”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 recites “wherein one or more tines extending from a region of the body distal from a central region of the body have a length longer than tines extending from a non-distal region of the body.”. Vokes teaches tines extending from a distal region of a body and a non distal region of a body , however Vokes does not teach or suggest wherein one or more tines extending from a region of the body distal from a central region of the body have a length longer than tines extending from a non-distal region of the body.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the plurality of tines comprises tines angled differently with respect to the body and wherein the angle of the tines with respect to the body increases towards a central region of the body.”. Vokes teaches a plurality of tines angled with respect to the body, however Vokes does not teach or suggest wherein the plurality of tines comprises tines angled differently with respect to the body and wherein the angle of the tines with respect to the body increases towards a central region of the body.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the plurality of tines is arranged into at least a first tine group and a second tine group, each tine group comprising a plurality of tines, the tine groups being separated by a tine-free region, and optionally wherein the separation of the first and second tine groups defined by the tine-free region is at least double the maximum spacing between adjacent tines in the first or second tine groups.”. Vokes teaches a plurality of tines arranged into a first tine group, however Vokes does not teach or suggest wherein the plurality of tines is arranged into at least a first tine group and a second tine group, each tine group comprising a plurality of tines, the tine groups being separated by a tine-free region, and optionally wherein the separation of the first and second tine groups defined by the tine-free region is at least double the maximum spacing between adjacent tines in the first or second tine groups. Claim 14 depends on claim 13 and hence would also be allowable upon incorporation of claim 13 into claim 1.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the plurality of tines is arranged into at least a first tine group and a second tine group, each tine group comprising a plurality of tines, the tine groups being separated by a region comprising tines of a length shorter than the minimum tine length of tines in the first or second tine groups.”. Vokes teaches a plurality of tines arranged into a first tine group, however Vokes does not teach or suggest wherein the plurality of tines is arranged into at least a first tine group and a second tine group, each tine group comprising a plurality of tines, the tine groups being separated by a region comprising tines of a length shorter than the minimum tine length of tines in the first or second tine groups.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the body comprises a first body and a second body, each body having a plurality of tines, and wherein, in use, the first body and second body substantially surround the second object. Vokes teaches a body comprises a first body having a plurality of tines, however Vokes does not teach or suggest wherein the body comprises a first body and a second body, each body having a plurality of tines.
Claim 17 recites “wherein a ratio of tine length to spacing between adjacent tines is in the range 2.5 to 20 and wherein a thickness of the tines and the body in a direction perpendicular to elongate axes of the plurality of tines is the same.”. Vokes teaches a body comprises a first body having a plurality of tines, the tines including a ratio of tine length to spacing between adjacent tines, however Vokes does not teach or suggest wherein a ratio of tine length to spacing between adjacent tines is in the range 2.5 to 20 and wherein a thickness of the tines and the body in a direction perpendicular to elongate axes of the plurality of tines is the same.
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 20 recites “ A method for obstructing the passage of debris and providing ventilation through a region between a first object and a second object, the method comprising:
connecting one or more apparatuses to the first object, wherein each of the one or more apparatuses comprises a body and a plurality of tines extending from the body; and
attaching the first object to the second object to define the region, such that the tines of the one or more apparatuses extend across the region and flex against the second object leaving channels between tines in the region allowing for ventilation,
wherein the body of the each of the one or more apparatuses is arcuate and the plurality of tines extending therefrom extends inwardly from the inner circumference of the body.”.
Vokes in figures 1 and 2 teaches an apparatus for obstructing the passage of debris and providing ventilation , the apparatus comprising a body(crescent shaped body 1); and a plurality of tines(tines 2) extending from the body, the tines including a structure capable of flexing(column 2 lines 94-95 stating the tines could be bent into a desired shape) , the tines including channels between the tines in the region allowing for ventilation, wherein the body is arcuate and the plurality of tines extends inwardly from the inner circumference of the body. However Vokes does not teach or suggest a method for obstructing the passage of debris and providing ventilation through a region between a first object and a second object, the method comprising: connecting one or more apparatuses to the first object, wherein each of the one or more apparatuses comprises a body and a plurality of tines extending from the body; and attaching the first object to the second object to define the region, such that the tines of the one or more apparatuses extend across the region and flex against the second object leaving channels between tines in the region allowing for ventilation, wherein the body of the each of the one or more apparatuses is arcuate and the plurality of tines extending therefrom extends inwardly from the inner circumference of the body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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.
/ROBERT A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
August 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights