Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final office action in response to the amendment filed 1/12/2026.
Claims 1, 10-11 and 16 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 10-13, 16 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Holland(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2018/0038112; cited on PTO 892.
Holland discloses a ridge vent(20, see Fig. 1) comprising:
an air permeable mat(22) having a top side, a bottom side, opposed edge portions(24/24a, 34), and a central portion(32, see para. [0023] and see Fig. 3);
wherein the air permeable mat is configured to be installed along a ridge or hip of
a roof covering a ventilation slot(18) formed along the ridge or hip of the roof(see Fig. 1);
a moisture barrier(21, see Figs. 1 and 4) positioned on the top side of the air permeable mat(22, see Fig. 1) and configured to resist penetration of water into the air permeable mat when the ridge vent is installed along the ridge or hip of the roof(see para. [0020] and Fig. 4);
wherein the moisture barrier is integrated with the air permeable mat and forms an outermost exposed surface of the ridge vent when the ridge vent is installed along the ridge or hip of the roof(the mat and barrier are attached and therefore considered to be integrated meeting the claim limitation);
wherein each of the opposed edge portions(24/24a, 34) includes a wind baffle(24, 24a) extending at least partially along the ridge vent and defining an outboard edge of the ridge vent(see Figs. 2 and 5), and an exposed portion(34, see Figs. 2-3 and 5) between the wind baffle(24, 24a) and the central portion(32) of the air permeable mat(22) configured to facilitate passage of air from the ventilation slot through the ridge vent(see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Holland discloses a roof(10, see Fig. 1), comprising:
a roof deck(12);
a ridge or hip(see Fig. 1); and
at least one ridge vent(20) configured to be installed along the ridge or hip of the roof(see Fig. 1);
wherein the at least one ridge vent comprises:
an air permeable mat(22) having a top side, a bottom side, opposed edge portions(24/24a, 34) and a central portion(32) between the opposed edge portions(see Fig. 3);
wherein the air permeable mat is configured to enable a flow of heated air therethrough and toward at least one of the opposed edge portions of the at least one ridge vent(via 24, see paras. [0002] and [0003} and Fig. 3); and
a moisture barrier(34, see Fig. 3) positioned on the top side of the air permeable mat and configured to prevent penetration of water into the air permeable mat when the at least one ridge vent is installed along the ridge or hip of the roof(see paras. [0020] and [0022] and Fig. 3);
wherein each of the opposed edge portions is configured to block windblown water and insects from entering an attic space below the roof deck through the at least one ridge vent(the moisture barrier prevents insects and water from being blown down into the space, and the structure and location of the mat is considered to inherently prevent at least some water and insects from being blown into the space meeting the functional claim limitation), and each includes an exposed portion configured to facilitate ventilation of the flow of heated air through the opposed edge portions of the at least one ridge vent(edges 34, 36 allow for ventilation meeting the claim limitation), and each of the opposed edge portions further includes a wind baffle extending at least partially along the at least one ridge vent and defining an outboard edge of the at least one ridge vent(the outer edges of the barrier extend at least partially along the ridge vent and are considered the wind baffle meeting the claim limitation, see Fig. 3 of Coulton).
Regarding claim 11, Holland discloses the roof of claim 10, wherein the exposed portions(34) are positioned between the wind baffles(24/24a) and the central portion(32, see Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Holland discloses the roof of claims 1 and 10, further comprising a longitudinally extending air gap(see Fig. 2) formed along the bottom side of the air permeable mat and configured to facilitate bending of the air permeable mat along the central portion thereof(the material of the mat and gaps allows for the bending of the mat and meets the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 16, Holland discloses a roof(10, see Fig. 1), comprising:
a roof deck(12);
a ridge or hip extending along the roof deck and having a ventilation slot(18) defined therealong;
at least one ridge vent(20) positioned along the ridge or hip and configured to cover the ventilation slot(18, see Figs. 1 and 2);
wherein the at least one ridge vent comprises:
a mat(22) having a top side, a bottom side, opposed edge portions(24/24a, 34), and a central portion(32) between the opposed edge portions(see Figs. 3 and 5);
wherein the mat(22) is configured to bend along the central portion thereof during installation of the at least one ridge vent along the ridge or hip of the roof(the material of the mat enables the vent to conform to the roof and considered to meet the claim limitation);
and
a moisture barrier(21) applied along the top side of the mat so as to bend with the mat(cap shingles are inherently flexible and considered to bend with the mat meeting the claim limitation);
wherein the moisture barrier is configured to resist penetration of water into the mat when the at least one ridge vent is installed along the ridge or hip of a roof(see para. [0020] and Fig. 4);
wherein the mat comprises an air permeable mat configured to enable a flow of air from an attic space below the roof deck to pass through the at least one ridge vent and toward one or more of the opposed edge portions(see para. 0020] and Fig. 4); and
wherein each of the opposed edge portions includes an exposed portion(34, see Fig. 5) configured to facilitate ventilation of the flow of air through the opposed edge portions of the at least one ridge vent(see Fig. 4), and a wind baffle(24, 24a) extending at least partially along the at least one ridge vent(see Fig. 2) and configured to block windblown water and insects from entering the attic space below the roof deck through the at least one ridge vent(see para. [0020] and Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 19, Holland discloses the ridge vent and roof of claims 1, 10 and 16, further comprising a plurality of ventilation channels formed in the air permeable mat(see Figs. 1-2 and 4) and extending along the bottom side thereof; wherein the ventilation channels are configured to direct flows of air from a lower portion of the roof on which the ridge vent is installed through the ridge vent and toward an upper portion of the roof(see Fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 10-13, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coulton(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2006/0154597; cited on IDS filed
4/4/2024) in view of Holland.
Coulton discloses a ridge vent(30, see Fig. 3) comprising:
an air permeable mat(32, see para. [0020]) having a top side, a bottom side,
opposed edge portions, and a central portion(see Fig. 3);
wherein the air permeable mat is configured to be installed along a ridge or hip of
a roof covering a ventilation slot(22) formed along the ridge or hip of the roof(see Fig. 3);
a moisture barrier(34, see Fig. 3) positioned on the top side of the air permeable mat and configured to resist penetration of water into the air permeable mat when the ridge vent is installed along the ridge or hip of the roof(see paras. [0020] and [0022]);
wherein the moisture barrier is integrated with the air permeable mat and forms an outermost exposed surface of the ridge vent when the ridge vent is installed along the ridge or hip of the roof(the mat and barrier are bonded and therefore considered to be integrated meeting the claim limitation, see para. [0022]);
wherein each of the opposed edge portions includes a wind baffle extending at least partially along the ridge vent and defining an outboard edge of the ridge vent(the outer edges of the barrier extend at least partially along the ridge vent and are considered the wind baffle meeting the claim limitation), and an exposed portion(outermost edges 36, 38, see Fig. 3) between the wind baffle and the central portion of the air permeable mat configured to facilitate passage of air from the ventilation slot through the ridge vent(air flows as is shown by 24 and considered to meet the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 16, Coulton discloses a roof, comprising:
a roof deck(see Fig. 3);
a ridge or hip extending along the roof deck and having a ventilation slot defined therealong(see Fig. 3);
at least one ridge vent(30) positioned along the ridge or hip and configured to cover the ventilation slot(22, see Fig. 3);
wherein the at least one ridge vent comprises:
a mat(32) having a top side, a bottom side, opposed edge portions, and a central portion between the opposed edge portions(see Fig. 3);
wherein the mat is configured to bend along the central portion thereof during installation of the at least one ridge vent along the ridge or hip of the roof(see claim 21);
and
a moisture barrier(34) applied along the top side of the mat so as to bend with the mat(see claim 1 and Figs. 1-3);
wherein the moisture barrier is configured to resist penetration of water into the mat when the at least one ridge vent is installed along the ridge or hip of a roof(see paras. [0020] and [0022]);
wherein the mat comprises an air permeable mat configured to enable a flow of air from an attic space below the roof deck to pass through the at least one ridge vent and toward one or more of the opposed edge portions(see para. 0020]); and
wherein each of the opposed edge portions includes an exposed portion(36, 38) configured to facilitate ventilation of the flow of air through the opposed edge portions of the at least one ridge vent, and a wind baffle(edges of 34 on 32) extending at least
partially along the at least one ridge vent and configured to block windblown water and
insects from entering the attic space below the roof deck through the at least one ridge
vent(see rejection of claim 1).
Coulton lacks the baffles being upstanding.
Holland discloses the roof deck and vent as discussed above with upstanding baffles(24, 24a).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the vent of Coulton with upstanding baffles, such as disclosed by Holland, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have provided for better management of the air flow thru the vent and increase effectiveness of the ventilation given the intended use of the vent and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 4, Coulton and Holland disclose the ridge vent of claim 1, wherein the air permeable mat(32 of Coulton; 22 of Holland) further comprises a longitudinally extending air gap(fold in Fig. 3 of Coulton; gap as shown in Figs. 1 and 2 of Holland) formed along the bottom side of the air permeable mat; wherein the longitudinally extending air gap is configured to accommodate folding of the ridge vent over the ridge or hip of the roof(the material of the air gap and fold in Fig. 3 of Coulton or the gasp in Holland allows the vent to conform to the roof and therefore considered to meet the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 10, Coulton discloses a roof(see Fig. 3), comprising:
a roof deck(see Fig. 3);
a ridge or hip(see Fig. 3); and
at least one ridge vent(30) configured to be installed along the ridge or hip of the roof(see Fig. 3);
wherein the at least one ridge vent comprises:
an air permeable mat(32) having a top side, a bottom side, opposed edge portions, and a central portion between the opposed edge portions(see Fig. 3);
wherein the air permeable mat is configured to enable a flow of heated air therethrough and toward at least one of the opposed edge portions of the at least one ridge vent(via 24, see paras. [0002] and [0003} and Fig. 3); and
a moisture barrier(34, see Fig. 3) positioned on the top side of the air permeable mat and configured to prevent penetration of water into the air permeable mat when the at least one ridge vent is installed along the ridge or hip of the roof(see paras. [0020] and [0022] and Fig. 3);
wherein each of the opposed edge portions is configured to block windblown water and insects from entering an attic space below the roof deck through the at least one ridge vent(the moisture barrier prevents insects and water from being blown down into the space, and the structure and location of the mat is considered to inherently prevent at least some water and insects from being blown into the space meeting the functional claim limitation), and each includes an exposed portion configured to facilitate ventilation of the flow of heated air through the opposed edge portions of the at least one ridge vent(edges 34, 36 allow for ventilation meeting the claim limitation), and each of the opposed edge portions further includes a wind baffle extending at least partially along the at least one ridge vent and defining an outboard edge of the at least one ridge vent(the outer edges of the barrier extend at least partially along the ridge vent and are considered the wind baffle meeting the claim limitation, see Fig. 3 of Coulton).
Coulton lacks the differing densities of the baffles(23, 24a) and central portion.
Holland discloses the roof with ridge vent as discussed above with the differing densities.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the vent of Coulton with differing densities, such as disclosed by Holland, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have provided for better management of the air flow thru the vent and increase effectiveness of ventilation given the intended use of the vent and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Coulton and Holland disclose the roof of claim 10, wherein the exposed portions(34 of Holland) are positioned between the wind baffles and the central portion(see Figs. 3-5 of Holland).
Regarding claim 13, Coulton and Holland disclose the roof of claim 10, further comprising a longitudinally extending air gap formed along the bottom side of the air permeable mat and configured to facilitate bending of the air permeable mat along the central portion thereof(see above rejection of claim 4).
Regarding claim 15, Coulton and Holland disclose the roof of claim 11, wherein the at least one ridge vent(of Coulton) is configured to be installed along the ridge or hip of the roof without a cap shingle being applied over the moisture barrier of the at least one ridge vent, and with the moisture barrier forming an outermost exposed surface of the at least one ridge vent(the vent of Coulton does not require a cap shingle and is therefore considered to meet the negative claim limitation, see Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 19, Coulton and Holland disclose the ridge vent and roof of claims 1 and 10 and 16, but Coulton lacks the use of ventilation channels formed in the air permeable mat and extending along the bottom side thereof; wherein the ventilation channels are configured to direct flows of air from a lower portion of the roof on which the ridge vent is installed through the ridge vent and toward an upper portion of the roof.
Holland discloses the ridge vent with ventilation channels as discussed above.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the invention to have provided the air permeable mat of Coulton with ventilation channels, such as disclosed by Holland, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have provided for better management of the air flow thru the vent and increase effectiveness of ventilation given the intended use of the vent and design requirements thereof.
Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Holland or Coulton and Holland, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rotter(5,167,579; cited on IDS filed).
Holland or Coulton and Holland disclose the ridge vent of claim 1, wherein the mat is an elongated strip allowing for air flow but lacks the mat specifically comprising cured randomly aligned joined fibers.
Rotter discloses a ridge vent having an air permeable mat(16) of randomly
aligned fibers joined by binding agents and cured(see column 3, lines 58-62).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the mat of Holland or Coulton with that of Rotter given that KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 547 U.S. (2006) has found that the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claims 3, 5 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Coulton and Holland, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spinelli(4,942,699; cited on IDS filed).
Coulton and Holland disclose the ridge vent and roof of claims 1 and 16, wherein the moisture barrier(of Coulton) is configured to resist penetration of water but lacks the barrier comprising a layer of fibrous material.
Spinelli discloses a ridge vent having a fibrous material moisture barrier
sufficiently dense to block penetration of water through the fibrous layer, also
considered a water impervious mat of fibers attached to the air permeable mat(24, 26
see column 4, lines 35-44 and 62-64 and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the moisture barrier of Coulton
with that of Spinelli given that KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127
S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 547 U.S. - (2006) has
found that the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded
predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claims 7, 14, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Coulton and Holland, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Railkar(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2013/0165038; cited on IDS filed)
Coulton and Holland disclose the ridge vent of claim in claims 1, 11 and 16, but lack at least one solar energy collector positioned along a top surface of the moisture barrier.
Railkar discloses a ridge vent and roof with the vent having a moisture barrier(73)
and air permeable mat(71) and a solar collector on a top layer of the barrier(see para.
[0030]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the invention to have provided the ridge vent of Coulton with a
solar collector, such as disclosed by Railkar, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have allowed for the generation of solar power to enhance the capabilities of the vent given the intended use of the vent and design requirements thereof.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Holland or Coulton and Holland, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tubbesing(4,957,037; cited on PTO 892) or Kasner(5,331,783; cited on PTO 892).
Holland or Coulton and Holland disclose the ridge vent of claim in claims 1 and 16, but lack at least one window in the ridge vent.
Tubbesing discloses a ridge vent having an opening(25) therein capable of
admitting light in to interior of the building(see Fig. 1).
Kasner discloses a ridge vent(12) having an opening/window(74) extending thru
the vent(see column 6, lines 17-20).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the invention to have provided the ridge vent of Holland or Coulton with a window, such as disclosed by Tubbesing and Kasner, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have allowed for light to enter the building to enhance the
capabilities of the vent as well as saved cost in material given the intended use of the
vent and design requirements thereof.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,970,864 in view of Holland.
‘864 discloses a ridge vent used in a roof(as discussed in the prior office action not repeated here for brevity) but lacks the baffles being upstanding and the differing densities of the central portion and baffles.
Holland discloses the ridge vent as discussed above with upstanding baffles and the density of the baffles being greater than the density of the central portion(see para. [0030]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the vent of ‘864 with upstanding baffles and differing densities, as disclosed by Holland, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have provided for better management of the air flow thru the vent and increase effectiveness of the ventilation given the intended use of the vent and design requirements thereof.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previous rejections
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the amendments to claims 1, 10 and 16, and claims that depend therefrom, adding language setting forth that the baffles are upstanding and have a greater density than a density of a central portion of the mat is moot given that the rejections have been withdrawn and new grounds of rejection have been made.
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 BETH A. STEPHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
BETH A. STEPHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Stephan/