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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Adjacent vent and female end thereof
End caps (C-shaped) – (the disclosure identified element 1002 as end caps, however, the figures of at least Fig. 19 seem to identify element 1002 at a location where one can visibly see inside the device, meaning the end cap is not shown; only a possible location for the end cap)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-2 & 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfert (US 4,325,290), in view of Matsushita et al (JPH07157690), hereinafter referred to as Matsushita.
Regarding claim 1, Wolfert (US 4,325,290) shows a ventilation system comprising:
a vent body (12, Fig. 5);
a perforated barrier (30, Fig. 5); and
a baffle (82/84, Fig. 5) located above the perforated barrier (Fig. 5), creating a multiple barrier system that limits the intrusion of water and debris into the vent body and also allows for adequate net free ventilation area for the egress of stale attic air (Fig. 5 - MPEP 2115 states material or article worked on does not limit an apparatus claim provided the apparatus is capable of performing the claimed function. The claimed structure of the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function of limiting the intrusion of water and debris into the vent body and also allows for adequate net free ventilation area for the egress of stale attic air).
However, Wolfert lacks showing a nonwoven polyester baffle.
Matsushita (JP07157960), a baffle used in buildings, is in the same field of endeavor as Wolfert which is a baffle used in buildings.
Matsushita teaches a nonwoven polyester baffle (¶0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the baffle of Wolfert to incorporate the teachings of the nonwoven polyester baffle of Matsushita, which would provide a nonwoven fabric for reinforcing asphalt roofing which has excellent processing operability in the manufacturing process of recyclable polyester asphalt roofing that is superior to conventional products (¶0005).
Regarding claim 2, Wolfert shows wherein the vent body comprises two flanges for attaching the ventilation system to a roof deck (see Annotated Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
857
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 5, Wolfert shows wherein a top of the vent body defines a V- shaped cavity (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Wolfert shows further comprising two mortar stops (see Annotated Figure 1), allowing for the packing of mortar between the two mortar stops and field tiles to prevent the intrusion of water underneath the tiles (see Annotated Figure 1 - the previous statement is interpreted as a statement of intended use, of which also invokes MPEP 2115 which states material or article worked on does not limit an apparatus claim provided the apparatus is capable of performing the claimed function. The claimed structure of the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function of allowing for the packing of mortar between the two mortar stops and field tiles to prevent the intrusion of water underneath the tiles).
Regarding claim 7, Wolfert shows further comprising a hood defining a V-shape (see Annotated Figure 1) and allowing for the fixation of an outer edge of the perforated barrier (Fig. 5, MPEP 2115 – as the Applicant claims a hood defining a V-shape allows for the fixation of an outer edge of the perforated barrier, as does Wolfert show with the same structure).
Claims 3 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfert (US 4,325,290), in view of Matsushita et al (JPH07157690), hereinafter referred to as Matsushita, in further view of Inokawa et al (US 4,545,292), hereinafter referred to as Inokawa.
Regarding claim 3, Wolfert shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 except further comprising a male body extension flange for overlapping a female end of an adjacent vent.
Inokawa (US 4,545,292), a roof ventilation device, is in the same field of endeavor as Wolfert which is a roof ventilation device.
Inokawa teaches further comprising a male body extension flange (54, Fig. 9) for overlapping a female end of an adjacent vent (B’, Fig. 9/10 – as the Applicant shows an adjacent vent for their claimed invention to have a male body extension flange to overlap with said undisclosed adjacent vent in their own Figures, as does Inokawa teach a male body extension flange 54 for overlapping a female end of an adjacent vent B’; see Drawing objection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vent of Wolfert to incorporate the teachings of the male body extension flange of Inokawa, which would provide a way to connect adjacent vent sections in a water-tight manner, which would help prevent damage to property in case of a leak (Col. 4, Lines 30-33).
Regarding claim 4, Wolfert shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the vent body.
However, Wolfert lacks showing further comprising two C-shaped end braces attached to an interior of the vent body.
Inokawa teaches comprising two C-shaped end braces (50, Fig. 9/10, Col. 4, Lines 22-24 – as the Applicant shows any end cap being C-shaped where element 1002 is identified in at least Fig. 19, as does Inokawa teach comprising two C-shaped end braces 50, of which is C-shaped as the top of the structure is curved in the shape of the letter C) attached to an interior of the vent body (Fig. 9/10, Col. 4, Lines 22-24 elements 50 are attached to the interior of the vent body comprising of element 20 and 22/22’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vent body of Wolfert to incorporate the teachings of the two C-shaped end braces of Inokawa, which would provide end caps of a shape that fits the device accordingly to close the ends of the device, which would prevent foreign objects including weather elements and animals out of the interior of the device (Col. 3, Lines 46-53).
Claims 8-9 & 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfert (US 4,325,290), in view of Matsushita et al (JPH07157690), hereinafter referred to as Matsushita.
Regarding claim 8, Wolfert (US 4,325,290) shows a universal tile ridge vent (UTRV) comprising:
a vent body (12, Fig. 5) comprising multiple holes (24/26, Fig. 5 – elements 26 are ports, or holes on each respective element 30);
a perforated barrier (30, Fig. 5) to minimize water intrusion into the vent body (Fig. 5 – element 30 is a perforated barrier, with the statement of “to minimize water intrusion into the vent body” being interpreted as a statement of intended use, of which MPEP 2115 establishes that material or article worked on does not limit an apparatus claim provided the apparatus is capable of performing the claimed function. The claimed structure of the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function of minimizing water intrusion into the vent body); and
a baffle (82/84, Fig. 5) adjacent to the perforated barrier (Fig. 5) to further limit water intrusion into the vent body (Fig. 5 – the statement of “to further limit water intrusion into the vent body” is being interpreted as a statement of intended use, of which MPEP 2115 establishes that material or article worked on does not limit an apparatus claim provided the apparatus is capable of performing the claimed function. The claimed structure of the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function of further limiting water intrusion into the vent body).
However, Wolfert lacks showing a nonwoven polyester baffle.
Matsushita (JP07157960), a baffle used in buildings, is in the same field of endeavor as Wolfert which is a baffle used in buildings.
Matsushita teaches a nonwoven polyester baffle (¶0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the baffle of Wolfert to incorporate the teachings of the nonwoven polyester baffle of Matsushita, which would provide a nonwoven fabric for reinforcing asphalt roofing which has excellent processing operability in the manufacturing process of recyclable polyester asphalt roofing that is superior to conventional products (¶0005).
Regarding claim 9, Wolfert shows wherein the vent body comprises one or more flanges for attaching the UTRV to a roof deck (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Wolfert shows wherein a top of the vent body defines a V- shaped cavity (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Wolfert shows further comprising a mortar stop (see Annotated Figure 1) for creating a seal to prevent water intrusion underneath the UTRV (see Annotated Figure 1 - the statement of “for creating a seal to prevent water intrusion underneath the UTRV” is being interpreted as a statement of intended use, of which MPEP 2115 states material or article worked on does not limit an apparatus claim provided the apparatus is capable of performing the claimed function. The claimed structure of the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function of creating a seal to prevent water intrusion underneath the UTRV, as the mortar stop creates a seal with the roof deck to prevent water intrusion underneath the device).
Regarding claim 14, Wolfert shows further comprising a hood defining a V-shape (see Annotated Figure 1) and allowing for the fixation of an outer edge of the perforated barrier (Fig. 5, MPEP 2115 – as the Applicant claims a hood defining a V-shape allows for the fixation of an outer edge of the perforated barrier, as does Wolfert show with the same structure).
Claims 10 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfert (US 4,325,290), in view of Matsushita et al (JPH07157690), hereinafter referred to as Matsushita, in further view of Inokawa et al (US 4,545,292), hereinafter referred to as Inokawa.
Regarding claim 10, Wolfert shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 8 except further comprising a male flange for overlapping a female end of an adjacent UTRV.
Inokawa (US 4,545,292), a roof ventilation device, is in the same field of endeavor as Wolfert which is a roof ventilation device.
Inokawa teaches a male flange (54, Fig. 9) for overlapping a female end of an adjacent UTRV (B’, Fig. 9/10 – as the Applicant shows an adjacent vent for their claimed invention to have a male flange to overlap with said undisclosed adjacent vent, or UTRV, in their own Figures, as does Inokawa teach a male flange 54 for overlapping a female end of an adjacent vent B’, or UTRV; see Drawing objection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vent of Wolfert to incorporate the teachings of the male body extension flange of Inokawa, which would provide a way to connect adjacent vent sections in a water-tight manner, which would help prevent damage to property in case of a leak (Col. 4, Lines 30-33).
Regarding claim 11, Wolfert shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the vent body.
However, Wolfert lacks showing further comprising an end brace attached to an interior of the vent body.
Inokawa teaches comprising an end brace (50, Fig. 9/10, Col. 4, Lines 22-24 – as the Applicant shows any end cap where element 1002 is identified in at least Fig. 19, as does Inokawa teach comprising an end brace 50) attached to an interior of the vent body (Fig. 9/10, Col. 4, Lines 22-24 elements 50 are attached to the interior of the vent body comprising of element 20 and 22/22’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vent body of Wolfert to incorporate the teachings of the end brace of Inokawa, which would provide end caps of a shape that fits the device accordingly to close the ends of the device, which would prevent foreign objects including weather elements and animals out of the interior of the device (Col. 3, Lines 46-53).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762