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 .
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 20 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 20 recites “the same height” lacking antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,735,084 to Zaccagni et al. in view U.S. Patent No. 5,937,592 to Tamlyn.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 12 and 19, Zaccagni discloses a fascia trim piece having a face section (fig. 2: 110), a bottom section (130) extending from the face section, a soffit channel (140, 144, 142, area where 170 fits) adjacent to the bottom section. However, Zaccagni does not disclose the bottom section having openings. Tamlyn discloses a soffit vent having a front wall (126), and bottom section with staggered rows of circular openings (fig. 5: see rows with 48). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaccagni by adding such holes as disclosed by Tamlyn in order to better vent and reduce moisture. Regarding the limitation of the piece being unitary, this is not disclosed. However, Tamlyn discloses such a vent (column 3, lines 18-33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaccagni by creating a unitary piece as disclosed by Tamlyn to increase strength and speed production.
Regarding claim 2, the channel (fig. 4: 140) is generally parallel to the bottom section (130).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 is rejected for reasons cited in the rejection of claim 1 in view of Tamlyn. Additionally, it should be noted that the openings of Tamlyn are throughout the bottom which makes some of the openings adjacent to the face and some openings adjacent to the channel.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Zaccagni in view of Tamlyn discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions of the holes. Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed dimensions, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaccagni in view of Tamlyn to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims as the larger holes would allow more ventilation as small holes require less which would be an obvious design choice based upon the amount of ventilation needed.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, a side wall (150) extends upward from the bottom section to the soffit channel (140) via 142, 144) and is generally perpendicular (extends generally vertically) to the bottom section and to the bottom of the soffit channel.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the soffit channel includes a first wall (142) extending from the sidewall (150), a second wall (144) extending upward from the first wall, and a third wall (140) extending from the second wall and generally parallel to the first wall.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, the third wall (140) is longer than the first wall (142).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected for reasons cited in the rejection of claim 1. Additionally, a soffit (170) is in the soffit channel.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9is rejected for reasons cited in the rejections of claims 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 18, the soffit channel is generally parallel to the bottom section.
Regarding claim 20, the soffit has a height which is approximately the same as the height of the channel (see fig. 4 soffit height and channel vertical wall height).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues the combination of Zaccagni in view of Tamlyn as improper in that Zaccagni does not disclose holes for ventilation and that the lower wall (142) would be blocking and restricting most air flow and, therefore, this is not obvious. However, there is located a gap between the lower wall (142) and the bottom (130) which would allow air to pass through. There is not a set amount of space required to allow air to pass, and a gap is disclosed as seen in fig. 2. Regarding hole size, most anu adequate size will allow air ventilation.
The Applicant argues, regarding claims 7 and 15 that wall (142) and wall (140) are not generally parallel. However, the Applicant should note that the walls run generally in the same direction and may be construed as “generally” parallel, as “generally” is not absolute.
Regarding amended claim 20, this is addressed in the new office action above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Basil Katcheves whose telephone number is (571)272-6846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm EST.
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 on (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.
/BASIL S KATCHEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights