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 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 05/05/2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
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) 1, 5, 7 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Number 2011/0312262 A1 to Grandmaison.
A) As per Claim 1, Grandmaison teaches a vent assembly (Grandmaison: Figure 3), comprising:
a backplate having a mounting flange (Grandmaison: Figure 3, Item 40) configured to attach to a support surface, and an inner wall (Grandmaison: Figure 3, Items 10 & 15) projecting inward from an inner perimeter of the mounting flange; and
a vent flapper (Grandmaison: Figure 3, Item 60) rotatably attached to the inner wall of the backplate, the vent flapper including a plurality of air intake openings formed within the vent flapper, wherein the air intake openings allow air to flow both in and out.
B) As per Claim 5, Grandmaison teaches that the vent flapper has a polygonal front face with a plurality of sidewalls projecting substantially orthogonally from the front face, and wherein the air intake openings extend through and cover a majority of the front face (Grandmaison: Figure 3, Item 60).
C) As per Claim 7, Grandmaison teaches that the vent flapper further includes a flapper recess formed on a lateral side of the vent flapper and a flapper hinge rotatably mounting the vent flapper to the backplate, wherein the flapper recess substantially ensures the vent flapper rotates around the flapper hinge (Grandmaison: Figure 3, Items 80 with recess on Item 60 between allows flapper to rotate).
D) As per Claim 18, Grandmaison teaches that the air intake openings are arranged in a mesh lattice covering a majority of a front face of the vent flapper (Grandmaison: Figure 3, Item 60).
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) 4 & 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grandmaison.
A) As per Claim 4, Grandmaison teaches all the limitations except that the air intake openings are hexagonal cells arranged in a honeycomb structure.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having intake opening shape solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that hexagonal cells would perform equally well with Grandmaison. Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the intake openings of Grandmaison hexagonal because the specific shape and arrangement of the openings does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
B) As per Claim 6, Grandmaison teaches all the limitations except that the front face of the vent flapper is substantially square.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having shape of the front face solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that a square front face would perform equally well with Grandmaison. Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the front face of Grandmaison square because the shape of the front face does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 8-10 & 19-20 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.
Claims 11-17 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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
Prosecution Insights