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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/25/26 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 2 in the interview dated 3/11/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-14,17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention or Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply dated 2/25/26 and 3/11/26.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification at page 4, paragraphs 0015,0016,0017 recite “system of claim 17”, “system of claim 18”, “system of claim 17”, respectively. The numbering of the claims is subject to change throughout prosecution and potential allowance and printing, accordingly the recitation and reference to specific claims by claim number in the specification may result in failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter and or confusion regarding the clarity of the disclosure. Accordingly the specification should not define the invention according to specific claim numbers.
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 1-10,15-16 and all claims depending therefrom 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 1 recites “each ply” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “in the gap”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Morris (20040134156).
Claim 1. Morris discloses a building ventilation system configured to be mounted on sides of a building structure between rainscreen wrap and exterior siding of the building for venting air in a gap between the rainscreen wrap and the ventilation system comprising:
a vent part (12 as in any of the embodiments of figures 3-5) including a plurality of vent passages (28), a longitudinal direction of the vent part configured to be mounted in substantially horizontal orientation at top and bottom edges of the sides of the building structure (as seen in figures 9) and a plurality of non-linear cross members (40/44 as seen in figure 5; or 26 in figure 3; or 36/34 in figure 4) extending between each ply (22/24 in figure 3; 30/32 in figure 4; 40/42/44 in figure 5), said plies and cross members defining said vent passages (28), and including two tiers or rows of vent passages (as seen in figures 3 or 5), said passages running in a substantially vertical orientation to facilitate venting and draining of the gap (as seen in figure 9).
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) 2-10,15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris (20040134156) in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art as presented in the specification and figures 1-4.
Claim 2. Morris discloses the building ventilation system configured to be mounted on sides of a building structure between rainscreen wrap and exterior siding of the building for venting air in a gap between the rainscreen wrap and the ventilation system as set forth in claim 1, but does include a filter member attached to an outer side end surface of said vent part, said filter member being made from a resilient material, provided in a sheet form and being in contact with and covering outer openings of said vent passages. Applicant discloses in the specification and drawings that it is known in the prior art to have a filter member attached to an outer side end surface of a vent part, made of a resilient material, in contact with and covering outer openings of said vent passages (as seen in paragraphs 0001-0004 and as in figures 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the ventilation system of Morris to have a filter member attached to an outer side end surface of said vent part, said filter member being made from a resilient material, provided in a sheet form and being in contact with and covering outer openings of said vent passages as disclosed by applicant as known in the prior art, to achieve the predictable result of preventing ingress of undesired materials into the vent part.
Claim 3. The building ventilation system configured to be mounted on sides of a building structure between rainscreen wrap and exterior siding of the building for venting air in a gap between the rainscreen wrap and the ventilation system as set forth in claim 2, including furring strips (10) extending in the gap between upper and lower vent parts.
Claim 4. The building ventilation system configured to be mounted on sides of a building structure between rainscreen wrap and exterior siding of the building for venting air in a gap between the rainscreen wrap and the ventilation system as set forth in claim 3, including two vent parts (as seen in figures 3,5) stacked and hingedly attached together by said filter member (as noted in disclosure and in claim 2 above).
Claim 5. The building ventilation system configured to be mounted on sides of a building structure between rainscreen wrap and exterior siding of the building for venting air in a gap between the rainscreen wrap and the ventilation system as set forth in claim 4, wherein the two vent parts are otherwise unattached to one another besides the hinged attachment together (where they are attached by the hinged attachment) by said filter member.
Claim 6. Morris discloses the building ventilation system configured to be mounted on sides of a building structure between rainscreen wrap and exterior siding of the building for venting air in a gap between the rainscreen wrap and the ventilation system as set forth in claim 5, wherein of each of said vent parts have vent passages (28) but does not disclose that each of said vent parts have vent passages each having a substantially pentagonal shaped cross-section. Instead Morris disclose a convoluted shape.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to pursue known design options and modify the shape of each of said vent parts vent passages to each have a substantially pentagonal shaped cross-section because applicant has not disclosed that a substantially pentagonal shaped cross section provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the convoluted shape of Morris, and applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the shape taught by Morris or the claimed substantially pentagonal cross section shape because both shapes would perform the same function of venting equally well.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Morris to obtain the invention as specified in the claim because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of. Further it has been held that changes in shape are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Claim 7. The building ventilation system configured to be mounted on sides of a building structure between rainscreen wrap and exterior siding of the building for venting air in a gap between the rainscreen wrap and the ventilation system as set forth in claim 6, where the vent passages of a top tier row of each vent part are offset from the vent passages of a bottom tier row of vent passages on each vent part (as noted in Morris).
Claim 8. The building ventilation system configured to be mounted on sides of a building structure between rainscreen wrap and exterior siding of the building for venting air in a gap between the rainscreen wrap and the ventilation system as set forth in claim 7, wherein the pentagonal shapes of the vent passages of the top tier row point downward and the pentagonal shapes of the vent passages of the bottom tier row point upward (where at least a portion of the shape would have a downward and/or upward component as this is matter of relative perspective and position).
Claim 9. The building ventilation system configured to be mounted on sides of a building structure between rainscreen wrap and exterior siding of the building for venting air in a gap between the rainscreen wrap and the ventilation system as set forth in claim 8, wherein bottom points of the pentagonal shaped vent passages on the top tier row align with side edges of the pentagonal shaped vent passages in the bottom tier row (as seen in Morris, where a change to the shape of the passage would still incorporate the same alignment).
Claim 10. The building ventilation system configured to be mounted on sides of a building structure between rainscreen wrap and exterior siding of the building for venting air in a gap between the rainscreen wrap and the ventilation system as set forth in claim 8, wherein top points of the pentagonal shaped vent passages on the bottom tier row align with side edges of the pentagonal shaped vent passages in the top tier row (as seen in Morris, where a change to the shape of the passage would still incorporate the same alignment).
Claim 15. The building ventilation system configured to be mounted on sides of a building structure between rainscreen wrap and exterior siding of the building for venting air in a gap between the rainscreen wrap and the ventilation system as set forth in claim 3, including two vent parts (12 as seen in figures 3 and/or 5) stacked and attached together by a pair of filter members (as modified in claim 2 above, where each would have a filter member resulting in a pair of filter members) attached to respective outer side end surfaces and covering outer openings of the vent.
Claim 16. The building ventilation system configured to be mounted on sides of a building structure between rainscreen wrap and exterior siding of the building for venting air in a gap between the rainscreen wrap and the ventilation system as set forth in claim 15, wherein the two vent parts are otherwise unattached to one another besides the two filter members along the side end surfaces (as seen in figures 3 and/or 5 and as modified by claim 2 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-8228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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 Mattei can be reached at 571.270.3238. 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.
JESSICA L. LAUX
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JESSICA L LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635