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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed on 09/02/2026 have been received, to which the Applicant is thanked. Claim 4 has been cancelled and removed from consideration. The Applicant has overcome the Drawing Objections of record and they have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered, but have not been found to be persuasive.
In response to Applicants argument on pages 5-6 regarding newly amended claim language,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are directed to new amendments to the claim language, which have been addressed in the rejection below.
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, & 16-18 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 Vallery et al (63/305,389, dated 02/01/2022), hereinafter referred to as Vallery.
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) comprising outer edges (see Annotated Figure 1);
a hood (10, Fig. 5) defining a V-shape (see Annotated Figure 1) and comprising lateral side ends (see Annotated Figure 1),
wherein the V-shape engages at the top of the vent body (see Annotated Figure 1), and
wherein the lateral side ends engage the outer edges of the perforated barrier to contain the outer edges (see Annotated Figure 1);
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), at least one splash guard (32/34, Fig. 5 – element 32 is a wall that functions as a splash guard, that is coupled to the vent body 12, as it is a part of the vent body 12, and the perforated barrier 30) coupled to the vent body (12, Fig. 5) and to the perforated barrier (30, Fig. 5).
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).
However, Wolfert lacks showing an indent at the top of the vent body.
Vallery (62/305,389), a roof ventilation system, is in the same field of endeavor as Wolfert which is a roof ventilation system.
Vallery teaches an indent at the top of the vent body (see Annotated Figure 2 – the Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines Indent: “to force inward so as to form a depression”; the Examiner is taking the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand the identified element is an indent, formed at the top of the vent body).
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 indent in the vent body of Vallery, which would facilitate a means for the vent body with an indentation to provide adequate rigidity to support the cap weight and reinforce the roof with a separate rigid member laying therein (Page 2, Lines 8-10).
PNG
media_image1.png
511
853
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
562
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
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).
Regarding claim 5, Wolfert shows wherein the top of the vent body defines a V- shaped cavity that receives the V-shape of the hood (see Annotated Figure 1).
However, Wolfert lacks showing an indent at the top of the vent body.
Vallery teaches an indent at the top of the vent body (see Annotated Figure 2).
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 indent in the vent body of Vallery, which would facilitate a means for the vent body with an indentation to provide adequate rigidity to support the cap weight and reinforce the roof with a separate rigid member laying therein (Page 2, Lines 8-10).
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 wherein the hood (10, Fig. 5) caps the baffle (see Annotated Figure 1 – the hood caps and encloses the baffle).
Regarding claim 16, Wolfert shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including wherein the vent body doubles as a structural member that can support weight (Fig. 5 – the vent body doubles as a structural member that can support weight, for example the weight of elements 82/84), while also providing sufficient air flow for venting an attic (Col. 1, Lines 5-8).
However, Wolfert lacks showing wherein the vent body doubles as a structural member to support the weight of a ridge cap tile.
Vallery teaches wherein the vent body (see Annotated Figure 2) doubles as a structural member to support the weight of a ridge cap tile (Page 2, Lines 3-6 – the vent body acts as a structural member to support the weight of a cap of a roof tile).
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 indent in the vent body of Vallery, which would facilitate a means for the vent body with an indentation to provide adequate rigidity to support the cap weight and reinforce the roof with a separate rigid member laying therein (Page 2, Lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 17, Wolfert shows wherein the baffle (82/84, Fig. 5) is located above the perforated barrier (Fig. 5), and formed by two sections of material of a relative cross-section placed on each side of the vent body (Fig. 5).
However, Wolfert lacks showing the baffle formed of nonwoven polyester material
Matsushita teaches the baffle formed of nonwoven polyester material (¶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 limitation “the baffle is of a of trapezoidal cross-section”, the courts have held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the baffle being of a of trapezoidal cross-section instead of having the baffle being of a relative cross-section, because applicant has not disclosed that having the baffle being of a of trapezoidal cross-section provides an advantage, is used for particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
As Wolfert shows the baffle is of a relative cross-section, one of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected the Applicant's invention to perform equally well with having the baffle being of a of trapezoidal cross-section or having the baffle being of a relative cross-section or shape, because both cross sections or shapes performs the function of filtering out external elements and transferring air equally well. (MPEP 2144.04, Sect IV.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baffle of Wolfert of having a trapezoidal cross-section for the predictable result and benefit of filling the contour of the shape of the vent hood with the baffle, increasing the filtering effect.
Regarding claim 18, Wolfert shows wherein the vent body comprises flanges (see Annotated Figure 1), and wherein the at least one splash guard (32/34, Fig. 5) comprises a first end coupled to the flanges (Fig. 5) and a second end coupled to the perforated barrier (Fig. 5), thereby forming a space between the at least one splash guard and the vent body (Fig. 5 – a space is formed between the at least one splash guard 32/34 and a component 20 of the vent body 12).
Claims 3 is 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 Vallery et al (63/305,389, dated 02/01/2022), hereinafter referred to as Vallery, 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 flange configured to overlap 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 flange (54, Fig. 9) configured to overlap an adjacent vent (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 in their own Figures, as does Inokawa teach a male flange 54 for overlapping a female end of an adjacent vent B’).
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 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).
Claims 8-9, 12-15 & 21 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 Vallery et al (63/305,389, dated 02/01/2022), hereinafter referred to as Vallery.
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);
and a V-shape at the top of the vent body (Fig. 5, see Annotated Figure 1);
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); the perforated barrier comprising outer edges (see Annotated Figure 1); a hood (10, Fig. 5) defining a V-shape (see Annotated Figure 1) and comprising lateral side ends (see Annotated Figure 1), wherein the V-shape engages at the top of the vent body (see Annotated Figure 1), and wherein the lateral side ends engage the outer edges of the perforated barrier to contain the outer edges (see Annotated Figure 1); 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), at least one splash guard (32/34, Fig. 5 – element 32 is a wall that functions as a splash guard, that is coupled to the vent body 12, as it is a part of the vent body 12, and the perforated barrier 30) coupled to the vent body (12, Fig. 5) and to the perforated barrier (30, Fig. 5).
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).
However, Wolfert lacks showing an indent at the top of the vent body.
Vallery (62/305,389), a roof ventilation system, is in the same field of endeavor as Wolfert which is a roof ventilation system.
Vallery teaches an indent at the top of the vent body (see Annotated Figure 2 – the Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines Indent: “to force inward so as to form a depression”; the Examiner is taking the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand the identified element is an indent, formed at the top of the vent body).
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 indent in the vent body of Vallery, which would facilitate a means for the vent body with an indention to provide adequate rigidity to support the cap weight and reinforce the roof with a separate rigid member laying therein (Page 2, Lines 8-10).
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 the top of the vent body defines a V- shaped cavity that receives the V-shape of the hood (see Annotated Figure 1).
However, Wolfert lacks showing an indent at the top of the vent body.
Vallery teaches an indent at the top of the vent body (see Annotated Figure 2).
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 indent in the vent body of Vallery, which would facilitate a means for the vent body with an indentation to provide adequate rigidity to support the cap weight and reinforce the roof with a separate rigid member laying therein (Page 2, Lines 8-10).
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 wherein the hood (10, Fig. 5) caps the baffle (see Annotated Figure 1 – the hood caps and encloses the baffle).
Regarding claim 15, Wolfert shows wherein the perforated barrier is coupled to the mortar stop (see Annotated Figure 1 – the perforated barrier 30 is coupled to the motor stop, as it is different elements of the same physical structure) and subsequently attached to the vent body (see Annotated Figure 1 – the perforated barrier is subsequently attached to the vent body 12).
Regarding claim 21, Wolfert shows wherein a second end of the at least one splash guard (32/34, Fig. 5) includes a formed angle in which an end of the perforated barrier (30, Fig. 5) sits (Fig. 5 – the at least one splash guard includes a formed angle, located proximal to the perforated barrier 30, in which an end of the perforated barrier sits).
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 Vallery et al (63/305,389, dated 02/01/2022), hereinafter referred to as Vallery, 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 configured to overlap 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) configured to overlap an adjacent UTRV (B’, Fig. 9/10 – as the Applicant shows an adjacent vent for their claimed invention to have a male flange configured to overlap with said undisclosed adjacent vent, or UTRV, in their own Figures, as does Inokawa teach a male flange 54 configured to overlap a female end of an adjacent vent B’, or UTRV).
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).
Regarding claim 21, Wolfert shows wherein a second end of the at least one splash guard (32/34, Fig. 5) includes a formed angle in which an end of the perforated barrier (30, Fig. 5) sits (Fig. 5 – the at least one splash guard includes a formed angle, located proximal to the perforated barrier 30, in which an end of the perforated barrier sits).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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.
Regarding claim 19 (ultimately dependent from claim 1) & similarly claim 20 (dependent from claim 8), the closest prior art of record is Wolfert (US 4,325,290), and while this reference does disclose the vent body, perforated barrier, and splash guard in its manner, however this reference does not disclose the structure required to meet the bar for the claimed limitations of having the at least one splash guard comprising one or more weep holes, which is to drain water from a space between the vent body and the splash guard. The Examiner finds no reasonable rationale that would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wolfert as doing so would employ hindsight reasoning and compromise the mechanical continuity of Wolfert by structurally modifying out of its best mode use, all while fundamentally teaching away from the device of Wolfert, as modifying weep holes in the splash guard of Wolfert would in effect allow an inflow of water into the vent body, where the water would not only enter the vent body but also enter the aperture in the roof and possibly cause damage to the roof and any structure or devices inside the roof/attic.
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
Prosecution Insights