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 1-5 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this communication, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed with this application.
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 1-5 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.
A) In Claim 1, lines 2-3, “comprises consisting of” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the following limitations are limited by “comprises” or “consisting of”. For the purposes of examination, “comprises” has been deleted from the claim.
B) In Claim 2, line 2, “ultraviolet light resistance” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what would qualify as having ultraviolet light resistance. For the purposes of examination, any clear material would have at least some ultraviolet light resistance.
C) Claims 3-5 are also rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication Number 2007/0173191 A1 to Daniels.
A) As per Claim 1, Daniels teaches a roof or sidewall vent top portion that is configured to cover a roof or sidewall vent and inhibit development of insect nests being built therein wherein the roof vent cover (Daniels: Figure 2) consisting of:
a transparent or translucent top cover (Daniels: Figure 2, Item 23; Paragraph 0038) formed of a single unitary piece constructed and arranged to removably attach to an existing base plate system (Daniels: Figure 2, Item 24) having base plate member being planar in manner, said base plate member having an upper surface and a mounting plate formed thereon;
said upper top cover being secured and coupled to said existing base plate system distal to said base plate member, said top cover member configured to inhibit moisture from entering vent (Daniels: Figure 2, Item 23 attached to Item 24 at Items 36-37);
wherein said top cover member coupled to said base plate system provides a structure for light to penetrate therethrough, inhibits creation of a dark protected space that will inhibit development of insect nests being built therein (Daniels: Figure 2, Item 23 attached to Item 24 at Items 36-37; Paragraph 0038).
B) As per Claim 5, Daniels teaches that said unitary body is translucent (Daniels: Figure 2, Item 23; Paragraph 0038).
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) 2 & 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels in view of US Patent Publication Number 2005/0005541 A1 to West.
A) As per Claims 2 & 4, Daniels teaches all the limitations except explicitly that said unitary body is formed of a clear, transparent material having ultraviolet light resistance.
However, West teaches said unitary body is formed of a clear, transparent material having ultraviolet light resistance (West: Paragraph 0010).
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 Daniels by having a clear body, as taught by West, 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 Daniels with these aforementioned teachings of West since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the transparent body of West for the translucent body of Daniels.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels in view of US Patent Publication Number 2005/0215192 A1 to Rye.
A) As per Claim 3, Daniels teaches all the limitations except that said unitary body is formed of polycarbonate thermoplastic.
However, Rye teaches a body is formed of polycarbonate thermoplastic (Rye: Paragraph 0035).
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 Daniels by making the body polycarbonate thermoplastic, as taught by Rye, 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 Daniels with these aforementioned teachings of Rye since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the material of Rye for the material of Daniels.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
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