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 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels (2007/0173191) in view of Vagedes (2011/0294412).
1. Daniels, II et al. teaches a vent, comprising: a body 22 having a “generally” cuboid structure (fig. 2 it is cuboid with the exception of the sloped front wall, but it is considered to meet a “generally” cuboid broadest reasonable interpretation) having a front wall 26 defining a front (exposed) surface, a rear wall 28 defining a rear (back) surface, and lateral edges (“sidewalls 27” are edges as broadly recited at least because they are located at the edge (“the line where an object or area begins or ends”, websters.com) of screen 29), respectively extending between the front wall and the rear wall, the body having an open lower end (fig. 3) capable of fluid (air) communication with a structure (“building”, para. 5) to be vented, the body having an upper wall (baffles 48 and 50 and the screen 29) opposite the open lower end, the upper wall including sets of laterally positioned louvers at left and right side portions thereof and a set of front louvers (the wall as defined herein is further made up of the screen, which acts as louvers for the majority of the top surface) at a front portion thereof (the screen is at the front, in addition to being at the back, sides, and middle of the upper wall as defined); and a front cover (vent cap 23 is a “front” cover because it is attached to and covers the front) fixed to the front surface of the body (fixed at ports 36, 37 [0031]). Daniels does not specifically disclose that the front cover has a set of cover louvers. Vagedes teaches a vent having a body with a top surface having louvers on left, right, and front surfaces and a cover with louvers (“air openings 53) in a front surface of said cover. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a set of front louvers into Daniels’ cover front wall as taught by Vagedes because the louvers will help to provide better ventilation through the cap and vent body. Further, if Applicant doesn’t believe that the screen could be considered louvers, then it would be obvious to substitute Vagedes’ louvers for Daniels’ screen. This would be within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art because screens and louvers are functionally equivalent for the purpose of letting air pass freely therethrough.
2. The Daniels body comprises a rear/upper flange (flange 24 is a rear/upper flange because it is in the rear and generally upper) positioned to be placed under a tile above the vent, the rear/upper flange disposed below the upper wall of the body and adjacent the open lower end of the body.
6. The Daniels body forms a tray structure defined by: the upper wall, left and right sidewalls extending downwardly from the upper wall, a front wall extending downwardly to form left and right front corners with the sidewalls, and a rear wall also extending downwardly to form left and right rear corners with the sidewalls (fig. 2 generally depicts such a (upside down) type tray).
7. A Daniels rear/upper flange 24 extending rearwardly from a lower edge of the rear wall.
Claims 3-4, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels in view of Vagedes and in further view of Smith (Re 25,921).
3. Daniels does not teach the rear/upper flange includes at least one bead extending left-to- right across the rear/upper flange, the at least one bead configured to deform the undersurface of an adjacent tile placed upon the rear/upper flange. Smith, fig. 2, teaches a flange 38 includes at least one bead 43 extending across the flange, the at least one bead configured to deform the undersurface of an adjacent tile placed upon the flange because bead 43 extends up. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rear/upper flange to include at least one bead extending left-to-right across the rear/upper flange, the at least one bead configured to deform the undersurface of an adjacent tile placed upon the rear/upper flange to stiffen the flange.
4. Daniel in view of Smith teaches the vent of claim 3, Smith further teaching the flange further includes a stiffening flange 45 extending downwardly from a rear edge of the flange, the stiffening flange extending across substantially the entire left-to-right extent of the flange, fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rear/upper flange to further include a stiffening flange extending downwardly from a rear edge of the rear/upper flange, the stiffening flange extending across substantially the entire left-to-right extent of the rear/upper flange for flange strength.
10. Daniels does not teach the rear/upper flange includes at least one bead extending left-to- right across the rear/upper flange, the at least one bead configured to deform the undersurface of an adjacent tile placed upon the rear/upper flange. Smith, fig. 2, teaches a flange 38 includes at least one bead 43 extending across the flange, the at least one bead configured to deform the undersurface of an adjacent tile placed upon the flange because bead 43 extends up. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rear/upper flange to include at least one bead extending left-to-right across the rear/upper flange, the at least one bead configured to deform the undersurface of an adjacent tile placed upon the rear/upper flange to stiffen the flange.
Claim 8 - is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels in view of Vagedes in and further view of Erekson (10,138,634).
8. Daniels does not comprise at least one back strap connected to the rear/upper flange. Erekson comprises a back strap 120 connected to a flange, fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Daniels to comprise at least one back strap connected to the rear/upper flange for a nail attachment.
Claims 13-15 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels in view of Vagedes and in further view of Schiedegger (5,791,985).
13. Daniels does not teach the upper wall of the body includes a stiffening rib forming a closed loop near the outer periphery thereof, the stiffening rib enclosing a central portion of the upper wall. Schiedegger, figs. 7-11, teaches an upper wall of a body includes a stiffening rib (the square, outer raised rib formation shown in figs. 7-8) forming a closed loop near the outer periphery thereof, the stiffening rib enclosing a central portion of the upper wall. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the O'Hagin upper wall of the body to include a stiffening rib forming a closed loop near the outer periphery thereof, the stiffening rib enclosing a central portion of the upper wall for strength.
14. Schieddeger further teaching the central portion enclosed by the stiffening rib is recessed below the stiffening rib, fig. 8.
15. Schieddeger further teaching the stiffening rib forms an "O" shape with two parallel sides, two other parallel sides, and angled corners therebetween, fig. 8. Daniels in view of Vagedes and in further view of Schiedegger does not expressly teach the "O" shape with two long parallel sides, two short parallel sides. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the "O" shape to be with two long parallel sides and two short parallel sides to maximize the rib strength.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed at least because Daniels does not teach left and right sidewalls, etc.
Claims 5,9,11-12, and 16-19 are rejected 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.
5 is allowed herein at least because Daniels does not teach a front cover comprises a lower flange positioned to be placed under at least one tile to the left or right side of the vent, the lower flange disposed below and forward of the rear/upper flange.
9 is allowed herein at least because the Daniels in view of Vagedes and in further view of Erekson back strap is not pivotably connected to the rear/upper flange such that the at least one back strap may be pivoted inwardly to avoid protruding beyond a rear edge of the rear/upper flange, and such that the at least one back strap may be pivoted outwardly to protrude rearwardly beyond the rear edge. Tast (2015/0020353) teaches a pivotably connected strap that may be pivoted inwardly to avoid protruding beyond a rear edge an article 30, and such that the at least one back strap may be pivoted outwardly to protrude rearwardly beyond the rear edge, but absent impermissible hindsight, it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the Daniels in view of Vagades and in further view of Erekson back strap to, as taught by Tast, be pivotably connected to the rear/upper flange such that the at least one back strap may be pivoted inwardly to avoid protruding beyond a rear edge of the rear/upper flange, and such that the at least one back strap may be pivoted outwardly to protrude rearwardly beyond the rear edge.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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 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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights