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 06/25/2026 have been received, to which the Applicant is thanked. The Applicant has overcome the 112(b) rejections of record have been overcome and they have been withdrawn. The Applicant has overcome the claim objection of record, and it has been withdrawn.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 5-7 regarding the rejection of claim 1 and Kortuem lacking disclosing “a plurality of gussets”,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are directed to subject matter that is elaborated on in new claims 25 and 26, of which addresses the new claim language, while also providing that Kortuem does in fact disclose a plurality of Gussets, as the Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines Gusset: “a plate or bracket for strengthening an angle in framework”.
MPEP 2112.01 states “It should be noted that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”, to which, the Examiner has taken the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand that element 40 is a plate or bracket used for strengthening an angle in the framework between the flat sheet material and its respective truss channel, and therefore Kortuem does disclose a plurality of Gussets, overcoming the Applicants argument.
In response to Applicants argument on page 8 regarding newly added claim language,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are directed to new claims with their respective claim language, which have been addressed in the rejection below.
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.
Claim 26 is 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.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “wherein each gusset of the plurality of gussets comprises a bracket-like shape”, to which is unclear as to what shape the Applicant is claiming, as the Applicant themselves has given no special definition to the claimed “bracket-like shape” that would give light to the metes and bounds such a shape would employ. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as any shape performing the function of the claimed element, will be a like shape of the claimed element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-10, 16, & 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kortuem et al (US 2007/0283639), hereinafter referred to as Kortuem.
Regarding claim 1, Kortuem (US 2007/0283639) shows a ventilation baffle (10/12, Fig. 9) comprising:
a sheet of material with two or more truss channels (38, Fig. 4/6) separated by a distance measured from each truss channel's center (see Annotated Figure 1), the ventilation baffle comprising a plurality of gussets (40, Fig. 4, see Annotated Figure 1) along each of the two or more truss channels (see Annotated Figure 1), wherein the gussets are positioned on opposing sides of each truss channel (see Annotated Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
663
1203
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Kortuem shows each of the two or more truss channels (38, Fig. 4/6) has at least four gussets (40, Fig. 4) reinforcing the two opposing sides (Fig. 4), with at least two gussets for each of the opposing sides (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Kortuem shows wherein for each of the two or more truss channels (38, Fig. 4/6), the plurality of gussets (40, Fig. 4) is regularly spaced along a length of the sheet (Fig. 4) with each gusset of the plurality of gussets located directly across from a second gusset (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Kortuem shows wherein for each of the two or more truss channels (38, Fig. 4/6), a first set of the plurality of gussets (see Annotated Figure 1) which reinforce a first one of the two opposing sides, are regularly spaced along a length of the sheet (see Annotated Figure 1), and are offset from a second set of the plurality of gussets (see Annotated Figure 1) which reinforce a second one of the two opposing sides (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Kortuem shows wherein for each of the two or more truss channels (see Annotated Figure 1), the plurality of gussets are positioned symmetrically about each truss channel (see Annotated Figure 1), each gusset having a corresponding gusset across from it (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Kortuem shows wherein each sheet of material is rectangular (Fig. 1), with a width in a first direction (see Annotated Figure 1), the width corresponding to a multiple of the distance between each of the two or more truss channels (Fig. 1/4, see Annotated Figure 1), and a second direction, the second direction being along a length of the two or more truss channels (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Kortuem shows wherein each of the two or more truss channels (Fig. 4/6/see Annotated Figure 1) has a depth corresponding to a predetermined plenum depth (Fig. 1/9 – the plenum is the area in which the sheet 10 is located).
Regarding claim 8, Kortuem shows wherein each of the two or more truss channels has a width greater than that of a standard roof truss (0040/0042 – the ventilation baffle 12 is not limited to the inclusion of details of the baffle, to comprise of elements 36 and 36a, to have a particular shape and configuration, and may have nearly any shape, size, or configuration that permits the baffle to perform its function, to include having each of the two or more truss channels 38 having a width greater than that of a standard roof truss 46).
Regarding claim 9, Kortuem shows wherein the width of each of the two or more truss channels accommodates deviations in a pitch of trusses in a structure in which the ventilation baffle will be used (¶0034/0040/0042, Lines 11-17 – the device is comprised of thermos plastics, and as such, the ventilation baffle 12 is not limited to the inclusion of details of the baffle, to comprise of elements 36 and 36a, to have a particular shape and configuration, and may have nearly any shape, size, or configuration that permits the baffle to perform its function, to include having the width of each of the two or more truss channels 38 to accommodate deviations in a pitch of trusses 46 in a structure in which the ventilation baffle will be used, which is in the roof/attic area).
Regarding claim 10, Kortuem shows wherein the width of each of the two or more truss channels accommodates deviations in a width of the standard roof truss (¶0034/0040/0042, Lines 11-17 – the device is comprised of thermos plastics, and as such, the ventilation baffle 12 is not limited to the inclusion of details of the baffle, to comprise of elements 36 and 36a, to have a particular shape and configuration, and may have nearly any shape, size, or configuration that permits the baffle to perform its function, to include having wherein the width of each of the two or more truss channels 38 accommodating deviations in a width of the standard roof truss 46).
Regarding claim 16, Kortuem shows wherein (¶0034, Fig. 1/4 – as the ventilation baffle is comprised of polymeric material which is known to deform under stress, is a material that renders the ventilation baffle, and its features therein), when the ventilation baffle is rolled, at least a first one of the two or more truss channels of the ventilation baffle is overlaid onto a second one of the two or more truss channels of the ventilation baffle (¶0034, Fig. 1/4 – as the ventilation baffle is comprised of polymeric material which is known to deform under stress, is a material that renders the ventilation baffle configured to nest with itself such that when the ventilation baffle is rolled, at least a first one of the two or more truss channels 38 of the ventilation baffle is overlaid onto a second one of the two or more truss channels 38 of the ventilation baffle).
Regarding claim 25, Kortuem shows wherein each gusset of the plurality of gussets (40, Fig. 4, see Annotated Figure 1 - the Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines Gusset: “a plate or bracket for strengthening an angle in framework”; the Examiner is broadest reasonable interpretation to understand that element 40 is a plate or bracket used for strengthening an angle in the framework between the flat sheet material and its respective truss channel) is disposed at a junction between a respective truss channel of the two or more truss channels (38, Fig. 4/6) and a portion of the sheet of material between the two or more truss channels (Fig. 1, ¶0032 – elements 10 and 12 are sheets of their respective material, to which since the plurality of gussets are disposed at a junction between a respective truss channel 38, and since the element is a sheet of material itself, it is also disposed at a portion of the sheet material between the two or more truss channels 38, as the entire element is comprised of the sheet material), and
wherein each gusset of the plurality of gussets comprises a first portion (see Annotated Figure 1) extending along and abutting the respective truss channel (see Annotated Figure 1) and
a second portion (see Annotated Figure 1) extending along and abutting the portion of the sheet of material (see Annotated Figure 1 – given that elements 10 and 12 are themselves sheets of material, the second portion extends along and abuts the portion of the sheet material).
Regarding claim 26, Kortuem shows wherein each gusset (Fig. 1/4, see Annotated Figure 1 – the Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines Gusset: “a plate or bracket for strengthening an angle in framework”; the Examiner is broadest reasonable interpretation to understand that element 40 is a plate or bracket used for strengthening an angle in the framework between the flat sheet material and its respective truss channel) of the plurality of gussets (40, Fig. 1/4) comprises a bracket-like shape (Fig. 1/4, see Annotated Figure 1 – the Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines Bracket: “an overhang member that projects from a structure (such as a wall) and is usually designed to support a vertical load or to strengthen an angle”; in light of the Applicant failing to outline the metes and bounds of what a “bracket-like shape is to be, the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand the plurality of gussets comprises of a bracket-like shape which is an overhanging member that projects from the top of the respective truss channel that is used to strengthen an angle between the flat sheet material and the respective truss channel; see 112(b) rejection above).
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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortuem et al (US 2007/0283639), hereinafter referred to as Kortuem, in view of Leatherman et al (US 2021/0270038), hereinafter referred to as Leatherman.
Regarding claim 11, Kortuem shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the device is made out of a material (Fig. 4).
However, Kortuem lacks showing wherein the material is lightweight, temperature resistant, moisture resistant, and resistant to fraying during installation and securing, the material comprising any of a fibrous material, a cardboard material, fiberglass, a plastic, a recycled material, a composite material, and a metal material.
Leatherman (US2021/0270038), an insulation board for an attic, is in the same field of endeavor as Kortuem which is an insulation board for an attic.
Leatherman teaches wherein the material is lightweight, temperature resistant, moisture resistant, and resistant to fraying during installation and securing (Fig. 1, ¶0022 – the facer material is recycled plastic, of which the Applicant themselves state “The sheet of material used to fabricate the ventilation baffle may be selected for various characteristics including strength to weight ratio, being lightweight, temperature resistance, moisture resistance, toughness (e.g., ability to resist fraying during and after installation), formability, "greenness", insulative properties, robustness, cost, and the like. For example, post-consumer recycled polymer (e.g., recycled plastic) may be selected as the sheet material because it may have a reduced carbon footprint, it may be easily and quickly molded, and it may be suitably tough to endure the handling and securing process, as well as the temperature fluctuations endured by a typical roof. The material selected for the ventilation baffle may be sufficiently robust to resist fraying during the installation and securing process, as well as being sufficiently resistant to fretting (e.g., wear) around points of securement“ in paragraph 0039 of their Specifications filed 02/21/2024, therefore the Examiner is understanding that recycled plastic meets these resistant limitations), the material comprising any of a fibrous material, a cardboard material, fiberglass, a plastic, a recycled material, a composite material, and a metal material (¶0022 – the facer material is recycled plastic).
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 material of Kortuem to incorporate the teachings of the material of Leatherman, which would provide a roofing structure capable of achieving the Very Severe Hail rating (¶0045).
Regarding claim 12, Kortuem shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 11 including the material.
However, Kortuem lacks showing wherein the material is a recycled plastic.
Leatherman teaches wherein the material is a recycled plastic (¶0022 – the facer material is recycled plastic).
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 material of Kortuem to incorporate the teachings of the material of Leatherman, which would provide a roofing structure capable of achieving the Very Severe Hail rating (¶0045).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortuem et al (US 2007/0283639), hereinafter referred to as Kortuem.
Regarding claim 13, Kortuem shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including a first ventilation baffle (10/12, Fig. 9), the two or more truss channels of the first ventilation baffle (Fig. 4/9), and edges of the first ventilation baffle (Fig. 4/9).
Regarding claim 13 and the limitations of wherein “a first ventilation baffle is configured to nest above a second ventilation baffle of similar dimensions such that when the first ventilation baffle is laid above the second ventilation baffle, the two or more truss channels of the first ventilation baffle are overlaid onto the two or more truss channels of the second ventilation baffle and edges of the first ventilation baffle align with edges of the second ventilation baffle”, in this case the prior art references the first ventilation baffle, the two or more truss channels of the first ventilation baffle, and edges of the first ventilation baffle. Producing a second ventilation baffle with its two or more truss channels overlaid onto the two or more truss channels of the first ventilation baffle and having edges of the second ventilation baffle aligning with edges of the first ventilation baffle would not produce a new outcome. The courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable weight or significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04, Sect. VI-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 first ventilation baffle of Kortuem to produce a second ventilation baffle with the same features as the first ventilation baffle which would provide a second layer, doubling the impact of function of the material.
Regarding claim 14, Kortuem shows wherein a first truss channel (see Annotated Figure 1) of the two or more truss channels is located a first edge distance (see Annotated Figure 1) from a first end of the sheet (see Annotated Figure 1) and
a last truss channel (see Annotated Figure 1) of the two or more truss channels is located a second edge distance (see Annotated Figure 1) from a second end of the sheet (see Annotated Figure 1), the first edge distance being equal to the second edge distance (see Annotated Figure 1).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortuem et al (US 2007/0283639), hereinafter referred to as Kortuem, in view of Curran (US 4,096,790).
Regarding claim 15, Kortuem shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 13 including the first ventilation baffle.
However, Kortuem lacks showing wherein the first ventilation baffle and the second ventilation baffle have a nestable configuration that allows gravity or friction to consecutive ventilation baffles in place when laying them on trusses during construction of a structure.
Curran (US 4,096,790), a ventilation baffle for use in a roof, is in the same field of endeavor as Kortuem which is a ventilation baffle for use in a roof.
Curran (US 4,096,790) teaches wherein the first ventilation baffle and the second ventilation baffle have a nestable configuration that allows gravity or friction to consecutive ventilation baffles in place when laying them on trusses during construction of a structure (Col. 3, Lines 1-8 – a first baffle 10 and a second baffle 10 when laid next to each other, have the edges 42 and 44 sized so they will abut one another when meet as they fit over adjacent trusses 12).
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 first ventilation baffle of Kortuem to incorporate the teachings of the first and second ventilation baffle of Curran, which would provide a lightweight, preformed baffle that can be installed without drawback from bulky construction that could impinge on the rafters in the attic during construction (Col. 1, Lines 42-46 / col. 2, Lines 25-39).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References Cited.
The following prior art teaches related XXX:
US 2007/0151176 - Mumaw discloses a hinged roof vent with gussets
US 3,196,733 – Lorenz discloses a ventilating structure beneath a roof that comprises of air channels and slanted side structures thereoff
US 3,759,006 – Tamboise discloses a framework with channels and gussets
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 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
