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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-26 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 04/10/2025 & 12/08/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
A) The first and second openings being parallel to each other in Claim 20 seems to directly conflict the independent Claim 18 stating that the first and second opening being angularly offset. For the purposes of examination, being angularly offset has been disregarded when examining Claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR20070095576A to Yu.
A) As per Claim 18, Yu teaches a venting unit for a wall of a building structure (Yu: Figure 4), the venting unit comprising:
a frame (Yu: Figure 4, Item 14) defining an airway;
a filter (Yu: Figure 5, Item 21) arranged to filter air passing through the airway;
a platen (Yu: Figure 5, Item 11) operable to cover and seal the airway; and
an actuator system (Yu: Figure 7, Items 28 & 29); coupled to the platen and the frame, the actuator system operable to transition the platen between a plurality of positions (Yu: best shown in Figure 7 with Item 11 in awning mode defines openings on bottom and both lateral sides) to define a first opening into the venting unit and a second opening into the venting unit, the first opening being angularly offset from the second opening.
B) As per Claim 19, Yu teaches that the first opening and the second opening are substantially perpendicular to one another (Yu: best shown in Figure 7 with Item 11 in awning mode defines openings on bottom and both lateral sides).
C) As per Claim 20, Yu teaches that the first opening and the second opening are substantially parallel to one another (Yu: best shown in Figure 7 with Item 11 in awning mode defines openings on bottom and both lateral sides).
D) As per Claim 21, Yu teaches that the plurality of positions includes a fully extended position (Yu: Figure 7, Item 11 fully extended out), an awning position (Yu: Figure 7, Item 11 intermediate on rack 28), and a casement position (Yu: Figure 11c).
E) As per Claim 22, Yu teaches that the platen further includes a weather seal (Yu: pg. 8, paragraph 4).
F) As per Claim 23, Yu teaches that the platen is coupled to the frame such that the platen is resistant to being forced open by a force external to the platen (Yu: Figure 7, Item 11 would resist being opened by an external force against the actuators/locks).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1, 4-6, 9-12, 15-17 & 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of DE102009004692A1 to Ficht.
A) As per Claims 1 & 24, Yu teaches a fenestration unit comprising:
a frame assembly (Yu: Figure 4, Item 10) including a frame assembly member; and
a venting unit coupled to the frame assembly member, the venting unit comprising:
a frame (Yu: Figure 4, Item 14) defining an airway;
a filter (Yu: Figure 5, Item 21) arranged to filter air passing through the airway;
a platen (Yu: Figure 5, Item 11) operable to cover the airway; and
an actuator system (Yu: Figure 7, Items 28-29) coupled to the platen and the frame, the actuator system operable to angulate the platen at a first angle to preferentially direct air through the airway from a first direction (Yu: shown in Figure 7, Item 11).
Yu does not teach the actuator system to angulate the platen at a second angle different than the first angle to preferentially direct air through the airway from a second direction.
However, Ficht teaches the actuator system to angulate the platen at a second angle different than the first angle to preferentially direct air through the airway from a second direction (Ficht: Figure 1, all Items 6 operable to place the window at different angles including straight out as shown).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Yu by having all corners be actuatable to allow for multiple angles, as taught by Ficht, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yu with these aforementioned teachings of Ficht with the motivation of providing more airflow/light options for the user.
B) As per Claim 4, Yu in view of Ficht teaches that the filter is a HEPA filter (Yu: Figure 5, Item 21).
C) As per Claim 5, Yu in view of Ficht teaches that the venting unit further includes an outer panel, the outer panel including a louvered panel (Yu: Figure 7, panel Item 12).
D) As per Claim 6, Yu in view of Ficht teaches that the louvered panel is at a fixed angle relative to the airway (Yu: Figure 7, panel Item 12 does not rotate or move even if individual louvers within panel rotate).
E) As per Claim 9, Yu in view of Ficht teaches that the actuator system is configured to be driven via at least one of a crank, a button, or a slide (Ficht: Figure 1, Items 6).
F) As per Claim 10, Yu in view of Ficht teaches that the actuator system includes a set of actuators, the set of actuators being located at each of the four corners of the platen (Ficht: Figure 1, Items 6).
G) As per Claim 11, Yu in view of Ficht teaches that the platen includes a hinge along an upper frame member and a lower frame member, and the actuator system is positioned opposite to the hinge (Yu: shown in Figure 7).
H) As per Claim 12, Yu in view of Ficht teaches a control system in communication with the actuator system, the control system operable to drive the actuator system (Ficht: control system to move Items 6 independently).
I) As per Claim 15, Yu in view of Ficht teaches that the venting unit defines a passive ventilation system (Yu: Figure 11a).
J) As per Claim 16, Yu in view of Ficht teaches that the venting unit defines a mechanical ventilation system and further includes a fan adjacent the filter (Yu: fan Item 23).
K) As per Claim 17, Yu in view of Ficht teaches that the venting unit defines a hybrid ventilation system (Yu: Figures 11a-11c).
L) As per Claim 25, Yu in view of Ficht teaches that the frame assembly member is an upper frame member (Yu: Figure 4, Item 10 upper frame).
M) As per Claim 26, Yu in view of Ficht teaches that the frame assembly member is a lower frame member (Yu: Figure 4, Item 10 lower frame).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Ficht as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Number 9,932,768 B2 to Valinejadshoubi.
A) As per Claim 2, Yu in view of Ficht teaches all the limitations except that a solar panel coupled adjacent to the platen.
However, Valinejadshoubi teaches a solar panel coupled adjacent to the platen (Valinejadshoubi: Figures 2A-3B; Item 172).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Yu in view of Ficht by having a solar panel on top, as taught by Valinejadshoubi, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yu in view of Ficht with these aforementioned teachings of Valinejadshoubi with the motivation of powering the system without needing an outlet nearby.
B) As per Claim 3, Yu in view of Ficht and Valinejadshoubi teaches that the actuator system is operable to transition the solar panel between a first solar panel position and a second solar panel position to preferentially capture solar energy, wherein the first solar panel position and the second solar panel position are angularly offset (Valinejadshoubi: Figures 2A-3B; Item 172).
Claim(s) 7-8 & 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Ficht as applied to claims 1, 5 or 12 above, and further in view of US Patent Number 11,719,037 B2 to Farnes.
A) As per Claims 7-8, Yu in view of Ficht teaches that the venting unit further includes an inner panel (Yu: Figure 5, Item 12 or 13).
Yu in view of Ficht does not teach that the inner panel including an insect screen.
However, Farnes teaches an insect screen (Farnes: Col. 1, lines 48-56).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Yu in view of Ficht by adding a screen, as taught by Farnes, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yu in view of Ficht with these aforementioned teachings of Farnes with the motivation of preventing bugs into the building through the window.
B) As per Claim 13, Yu in view of Ficht teaches all the limitations except a sensor in communication with the control system, wherein the sensor is configured to receive weather information and send the weather information to the control system.
However, Farnes teaches a sensor in communication with the control system, wherein the sensor is configured to receive weather information and send the weather information to the control system (Farnes: Col. 26, lines 40-50).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Yu in view of Ficht by add a weather sensor control, as taught by Farnes, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yu in view of Ficht with these aforementioned teachings of Farnes with the motivation of closing the window when bad weather is likely.
C) As per Claim 14, Yu in view of Ficht teaches all the limitations except that the control system is integrated within a home automation system or a home security system.
However, Farnes teaches the control system is integrated within a home automation system or a home security system (Farnes: Col. 7, lines 37-41).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Yu in view of Ficht by integrating it with a security system, as taught by Farnes, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yu in view of Ficht with these aforementioned teachings of Farnes with the motivation of ensuring that the window is closed when the security mode is on.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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, STEVE MCALLISTER can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762