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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, to cover claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein for each of the two or more truss channels, a first set of the plurality of gussets which reinforce a first one of the two opposing sides are regularly spaced along a length of the sheet are offset from a second set of the plurality of gussets which reinforce a second one of the two opposing sides”, of which seems to be a bit idiomatic without any punctuation. To obviate the objection, the Examiner would suggest an amendment along the lines of “wherein for each of the two or more truss channels, a first set of the plurality of gussets which reinforce a first one of the two opposing sides, are regularly spaced along a length of the sheet, and are offset from a second set of the plurality of gussets which reinforce a second one of the two opposing sides”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-12 & 16 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.
The term “sufficiently robust” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently robust” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 11 recites a limitation relative to the term “sufficiently robust”, however, the disclosure is silent on the metes and bounds of what the Applicant intends “sufficiently robust” to encompass. For examination purposes, any material makeup that renders the material able to perform its intended use, is a material that is sufficiently robust. All dependent claims are similarly rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "such that" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the ventilation baffle is 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 of the ventilation baffle is overlaid onto a second one of the two or more truss channels of the ventilation baffle”, of which, due to the phrase “such that”, renders the claim unclear as to whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as the ventilation baffle is configured to nest within itself, of which does not actually require the limitation to happen, only that its possible to by virtue of its material.
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 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 the ventilation baffle is configured to nest with itself (¶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, 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 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).
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 sufficiently robust to resist 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 sufficiently robust to resist 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 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).
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