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 Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: there appears to be no claim 23.
Claim 25 is objected to because it depends from claim 23, which does not appear to exist. Accordingly, the claim 25 has not been further treated on the merits.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-5, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carlson et al. US 2008/0287053 A1 (hereinafter ‘Carlson’).
In regard to claims 1, 4, Carlson teaches a ridge vent panel (10) configured for installation over a peak of a roof, the panel comprising:
two longitudinal edges (14, 16);
two lateral sides (18, 20);
a ridge vent interior section (24) bounded by the two longitudinal edges and the two lateral sides (fig. 2);
two longitudinal series of vent openings (52) provided along and proximate the respective two longitudinal edges (fig. 6A);
a ridge cap supporting section provided in the ridge vent interior section between the two longitudinal series of vent openings (fig. 6A), the ridge cap supporting section comprising a ridge cap supporting section central region provided between two ridge cap supporting section edge regions (central region being between 42 and 40, while the edge regions are between 16 and 42, and, between 40 and 14 for nailing ridge caps 44); and
wherein on average the ridge cap supporting section central region has a smaller thickness than the two ridge cap supporting section edge regions (see [0027]).
In regard to claim 3, Carlson teaches the claimed invention wherein the ridge cap supporting section central region extends substantially from a first of the two lateral sides to a second of the two lateral sides and substantially between the two longitudinal series of vent openings (see figs. 2 and 6A).
In regard to claim 5, Carlson teaches the claimed invention wherein the ridge cap supporting section comprises panel top and bottom surfaces, and further comprising two series (25 and 26) of flexible struts provided along and proximate respective two longitudinal edges of the ridge cap (see fig. 3, note that the struts are located proximate the edges and along at least part of the longitudinal edges of the central region). It is noted that the struts are made from the same material as the panel therefore they have the same properties. i.e. flexibility (see [0027]).
In regard to claim 12, Carlson teaches a ridge vent panel (10) configured for installation over a peak of a roof, the panel comprising:
two longitudinal edges (14, 16);
two lateral sides (18, 20);
a panel top and a bottom surface (12, 24);
a ridge vent interior section bounded by the two longitudinal edges and the two lateral sides (fig. 2);
two longitudinal series of vent openings (52) provided along and proximate the respective two longitudinal edges (fig. 6A);
a ridge cap supporting section provided in the ridge vent interior section between the two longitudinal series of vent openings (fig. 6A), the ridge cap supporting section comprising a ridge cap supporting section central region provided between two ridge cap supporting section edge regions (central region being between 42 and 40, while the edge regions are between 16 and 42, and, between 40 and 14 for nailing ridge caps 44); and
two series (25 and 26) of flexible struts provided along and proximate respective two longitudinal edges of the ridge cap (see fig. 3, note that the struts are located proximate the edges and along at least part of the longitudinal edges of the central region). It is noted that the struts are made from the same material as the panel therefore they have the same properties. i.e. flexibility (see [0027]).
Alternatively,
Claims 12, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Polston US 7662037 B2 (hereinafter ‘Polston’).
In regard to claim 12, Polston teaches a ridge vent panel (11) configured for installation over a peak of a roof, the panel comprising:
two longitudinal edges (32);
two lateral sides (40);
a panel top and a bottom surface (fig. 7, 8);
a ridge vent interior section bounded by the two longitudinal edges and the two lateral sides (fig. 8);
two longitudinal series of vent openings (28) provided along and proximate the respective two longitudinal edges (fig. 1);
a ridge cap supporting section provided in the ridge vent interior section between the two longitudinal series of vent openings (fig. 1), the ridge cap supporting section comprising a ridge cap supporting section central region (Y section, fig. 6) provided between two ridge cap supporting section edge regions (difference between X and Y regions, fig. 6); and
two series (35 fig. 8) of flexible struts provided along and proximate respective two longitudinal edges of the ridge cap (see fig. 8). It is noted that the struts are made from the same material as the panel therefore they have the same properties. i.e. flexibility (see col. 3, ln. 58).
In regard to claims 17 and 18, Polston teaches the claimed invention wherein a series of flexible posts (34) are provided on the panel bottom surface on the ridge cap supporting section edge portion (fig. 8) adjacent to louvers (33) which define the two longitudinal series of vent openings, wherein the posts are provided at a first interval along a longitudinal direction of the panel, and wherein with respect to the longitudinal direction the flexible struts are provided in staggered manner (or midway between two adjacent flexible posts) with respect to the first interval (as seen in fig. 8).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grubka US 2010/0112932 A1 (hereinafter ‘Grubka’).
In regard to claim 19, Grubka teaches a ridge vent panel (10) configured for installation over a peak of a roof, the panel comprising:
two longitudinal edges (along L, fig. 4);
two lateral sides (along W, fig. 4);
a panel top and a bottom surface (fig. 3 and 4);
a ridge vent interior section bounded by the two longitudinal edges and the two lateral sides (fig. 8);
two longitudinal series of vent openings (54) provided along and proximate the respective two longitudinal edges (fig. 4);
a ridge cap supporting section provided in the ridge vent interior section between the two longitudinal series of vent openings (fig. 4 Distance W minus LB2 on each side), the ridge cap supporting section comprising a ridge cap supporting section central region (32) provided between two ridge cap supporting section edge regions (34 and 36 minus their respective LB2 distance); and
a resilient cantilever finger (90, figs. 3 and 9) provided on at least one of the two lateral sides in at lest one of the two ridge cap supporting section edge regions (see fig. 4). It is noted that the claim does not specify what makes the finger “resilient” and the specification does not provide further information to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine what makes the finger resilient. Thus, the examiner takes the position that the finger of Grubka is resilient, in the same manner that Applicant’s is, because it is made from a flexible material (see [0062]).
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, 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson.
In regard to claim 2, Carlson is silent regarding the specific proportions of the thicknesses of the central region and the edge regions, thus leaving it up to the person of ordinary skill in the art to select the required thickness values. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to arrive at a value within the claimed range as a matter of routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. (In the instant case, thickness differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such distance is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
In regard to claim 6, Carlson teaches the claimed invention wherein the two ridge cap edge regions each comprise a preformed aperture (38) which extends through a thickness of the panel. Carlson’s aperture is not disclosed as being an oval shape, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to make the apertures with an oval shape because doing so involves mere change of shape of a component. Absent any persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). It is also common knowledge to choose a shape that has a desired aesthetic or durability and flexibility etc. for the application and intended use of that element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the aperture into an oval in order to allow for additional room when placing the nails.
In regard to claims 7 and 10, Carlson teaches the claimed invention wherein the aperture is located approximately in the center of the panel with respect to a longitudinal dimension of the panel (see fig. 2, middle aperture) and proximate the lateral side of the panel (figs. 2-3).
In regard to claim 8, Carlson teaches the claimed invention wherein the aperture comprises a top opening which is essentially flush with a top surface of the ridge cap supporting section edge region (figs. 1 and 6A) and an aperture bottom opening which is formed in an aperture tunnel (82) provided on a bottom surface (see fig. 2).
In regard to claim 9, Carlson teaches the claimed invention further comprising a tunnel connection web (can be seen in fig. 2 extending from the aperture and its tunnel towards the edge) which extends in a plane of a width of the panel to connect the aperture tunnel to a longitudinal edge of the panel in alignment with a louvre that defines at least one of the vent openings (see [0049]).
In regard to claim 11, Carlson teaches the claimed invention wherein the aperture extends through a tunnel (82) that extends below a bottom surface of the ridge cap supporting section (note that the area where the opening and tunnel are is part of the ridge cap supporting section -fig. 1).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Ciepliski et al. US 2007/0072540 A1 (hereiafter ‘Ciepliski’).
In regard to claims 13 and 14, Carlson is silent regarding the presence of a plurality of flexible struts comprising a tail section and a spine section.
Ciepliski teaches a vent panel comprising a plurality of flexible struts (12) comprising a tail section and a spine section (see fig. 2 -Note that there are shown long struts (spine -extending a greater distance than the tail) and short struts (tail). Note that the struts are flexible because they are made from the same material as the main panel (see [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide a plurality of tails and spines in the ridge cap supporting section central region of Carlson, as taught by Ciepliski, so as to prevent bugs, debris, water and other undesirable materials from entering through the vents (see [0020]).
In regard to claim 15, the combination of Carlson/Ciepliski teaches the tail and spine sections have a central axis which is inclined with respect to the bottom surface of the panel (note that the inclination is aprox. 90 degrees).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson and Ciepliski and in further view of Railkar et al. (hereiafter ‘Railkar’).
In regard to claim 16, the combination of Carlson/Ciepliski does not explicitly teach the strut spine section tapers away from the strut tail section toward the bottom of the panel.
Railkar teaches a vent panel comprising a plurality of flexible struts (26) comprising a tail section (flange, fig. 1 and 3) and a spine section (nail boss portion see fig. 3) that tapers toward the bottom of the panel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide a plurality of struts with tail that tapers towards the bottom of the panel a in the ridge cap supporting section central region of Carlson, as taught by Ciepliski, so as to provide support for the nail boss).
Claims 20, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grubka.
In regard to claim 20, Grubka teaches the claimed invention wherein preformed aperture (42) extends through a thickness of the panel in one of the two ridge cap supporting section edge regions (see fig. 4). Grubka’s aperture is not disclosed as being an oval shape, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to make the apertures with an oval shape because doing so involves mere change of shape of a component. Absent any persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). It is also common knowledge to choose a shape that has a desired aesthetic or durability and flexibility etc. for the application and intended use of that element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the aperture into an oval in order to allow for additional room when placing the nails.
In regard to claim 21, Grubka teaches the claimed invention wherein the aperture extends through a tunnel (62) that extends below a bottom surface of the ridge cap supporting section (see fig. 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 24 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 5PM.
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 E Glessner can be reached at 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633