CTNF 18/673,949 CTNF 96326 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites “the first connection” which lacks antecedent basis due to claim 11 depending from claim 9 . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “articulation” and “closed position holding system” (disclosed to be the same thing in claim 1) in claims 1, 3, 6 and 7. “open position holding system” in claim 1. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Paragraph [0015] of Applicants specification further describes the “articulation” and the “closed position holding system” as “first flange rigidly connected to the frame, a second flange rigidly connected to the flap, and an intermediate zone connecting the first and second flanges and designed to move the second flange toward the frame by elastic deformation”. Paragraph [0017] of Applicant’s specification further describes the “open position holding system” as “at least one fusible spacer interposed between the flap and the ventilation grille, positioned at least partially level with the opening, and designed to hold the flap away from the ventilation grille against the forces exerted by the closed position holding system.” If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe (US 3899156 A) in view of Tanner (US 4715268 A) . Regarding claim 1, McCabe teaches of: A ventilation device (Figs. 1-4) including an inner zone (Fig. 1, space within 10) and an outer zone (Figs. 2-3, space to the left of 20 and outside of 10) and comprises a frame (10+20) as well as at least one opening delimited by the frame (opening defined by 10+20) and designed to enable an air flow to flow between the inner and outer zones (air flows in and out of the opening defined by 10+20) , wherein the ventilation device comprises : at least one flap (12) configured to be in an open state in which the at least one flap at least partially opens the at least one opening (Fig. 2 shows an open state) and a closed state in which the at least one flap blocks the at least one opening (Fig. 3, shows a closed state), at least one articulation (22) connecting the at least one flap and the frame (22 connects 12 to 10+20), a closed position holding system (22) that is elastically deformable and configured to push and hold the at least one flap in the closed state (22 pushes on 12 into a closed state shown in Fig. 3), and an open position holding system (16) that is fusible and configured to hold the at least one flap in the open state against the closed position holding system (Col. 2, lines 13-15, “the blade retained in the open condition by a strap 14 and fusible link 16 as shown in FIG. 2”), wherein the articulation and the closed position holding system are the same thing (see above, 22 is both the articulation and the closed position holding system). McCabe fails to explicitly teach: a ventilation grille Tanner teaches of: a ventilation grille (Fig. 6, see grille 40 that is positioned over openings in 2) The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows: attach the grille of Tanner over the opening of McCabe A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because: the grille of Tanner has intumescent material coated on it which seal the vent in in fire conditions, ensuring the opening stays closed even when the fire damper of McCabe fails (Tanner, Col. 3, lines 54-65, “The inner surfaces of the grilles i.e. the surfaces adjacent the casing, may be coated with intumescent material, especially on the inner surface of the louvres. When the ventilation device is subjected to elevated temperatures, as under fire conditions, the intumescent material intumesces (i.e. expands to form a voluminous coherent mass) and thus seals the louvres and generally obstructs passage of air through the device. Thus even if the sheet 7 or seals 31 and 32 are destroyed or damaged by the heat of the fire, smoke and combustion products are prevented from passing through the device”) Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach of the ventilation device as claimed in claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach: wherein the at least one flap is positioned in the inner zone (McCabe, 12 is in the inner zone as mapped above) Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach of the ventilation device as claimed in claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach: wherein the articulation is located upstream of the at least one opening in an upstream/downstream direction (the direction of airflow through the system of McCabe is not explicitly defined, however, in a situation where air flows from the right to the left of Figs. 2-3 in McCabe, 22 would be positioned upstream of the opening defined by 10+20), wherein the at least one flap has a first edge (McCabe, 12 has a first edge at 18) connected to the articulation (all component within McCabe are connected to one another) as well as a second edge remote from the first edge (McCabe, 26 is remote from the edge at 18), said second edge being separated from the frame when the at least one flap is in the open state (McCabe, Fig. 2, 26 is separated from the frame 10+20) and immediately beside the frame when the at least one flap is in the closed state (McCabe, Fig. 3, 26 is immediately beside the frame 10+20 in the closed state shown). Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach of the ventilation device as claimed in claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach: wherein the articulation comprises a first flange rigidly connected to the frame (McCabe, 22 is connected to the frame via 24 at a first flange), a second flange rigidly connected to the at least one flap (McCabe, see portion of 22 connected to 12 at 26), and an intermediate zone connecting the first and second flanges (McCabe, see portion of 22 between 26 and 24) and designed to move the second flange toward the frame by elastic deformation (McCabe, see transition of 22 between Figs. 2-3, 22 elastically deforms to move second flange of 22 towards the frame 10+20). Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach of the ventilation device as claimed in claim 5, and the combined teachings further teach: wherein the flap comprises a curved extension (McCabe, 26) that is pressed against the second flange of the articulation and connected to the articulation (McCabe, 26 is pressed against the second flange of 22 and connected to 22). Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach of the ventilation device as claimed in claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach: wherein the open position holding system comprises at least one fusible spacer (McCabe, 16) interposed between the at least one flap and the ventilation grille (16 is positioned between 12 and the opening defined by the frame which in the combined teachings has the grille positioned over it), positioned at least partially level with the at least one opening (16 is partially level with the opening shown), and configured to hold the at least one flap away from the ventilation grille against the forces exerted by the closed position holding system (McCabe, Col. 2, lines 13-15, “the blade retained in the open condition by a strap 14 and fusible link 16 as shown in FIG. 2”) Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach of the ventilation device as claimed in claim 6, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach: wherein each fusible spacer is a strip of material having a length in an order of 125 mm, a width between 10 and 45 mm, and a thickness between 1 and 6 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified 16 of McCabe to have the above dimensions based on the following rationale: It has been found that “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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of McCabe would not operate differently with the claimed dimension and applicant has placed no criticality on the dimensions claimed, indicating that the invention is “not limited to this geometry for the fusible spacers” (see ¶ [0058] of applicant’s specification) Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach of the ventilation device as claimed in claim 6, and the combined teachings further teach: wherein the frame has front and rear sides parallel to each other, and right- and left-hand sides parallel to each other (see annotated version of Fig. 1 of McCabe below), the at least one flap being connected to the front side by the articulation (all components within McCabe are connected to one another), and wherein the open position holding system comprises first fusible spacers (McCabe, 16), the first fusible spacer connecting the flap and the right-hand side of the frame (all components within McCabe are connected to one another). The combined teachings fail to explicitly teach: a second fusible space the second fusible spacer connecting the flap and the left-hand side of the frame. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined teachings to include a second fusible spacer based on the following rationale: it has been held “that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In the instant case, modification of the combined teachings to have a second fusible spacer 16 adjacent the first would not modify the function of the device of the combined teachings and further applicant has placed no criticality on there being a second fusible spacer and explicitly states “the invention is not limited to this embodiment for the first and second connections 60, 62 to connect the first and second fusible spacers 58, 58’ to the flap 44 or to the frame 38” (see applicant’s specification ¶ [0064]). Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach of the ventilation device as claimed in claim 9, and the combined teachings further teach: wherein each fusible spacer comprises a first end connected to the at least one flap by a first connection (see annotated Fig. 2 of McCabe below, all components of McCabe are connected to one another), and a second end connected to the frame by a second connection (see annotated Fig. 2 of McCabe below, all components of McCabe are connected to one another), the first and second fusible spacers being connected to the at least one flap by a first shared connection (McCabe, both of the spacers share a connection at 26 of the flap 12) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe (US 3899156 A) in view of Tanner (US 4715268 A) and in further view of Biondo (US 6022271 A) . Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach of the ventilation device as claimed in claim 6, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach: wherein each fusible spacer is made of plastic or composite having a melting temperature between 100°C and 400°C. Biondo teaches of: wherein each fusible spacer is made of plastic (Fig. 3, 315 is made of plastic; Col. 4, line 29, “low melting plastic 315”) or composite having a melting temperature between 54°C and 77°C (Col. 4, lines 31-33, “Polymer 315 may be any deforming or melting plastic which yields at temperatures in the range of 130.degree. F. to 170.degree. F.”). The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows: modify 16 to be plastic and to melt within the claimed temperature range of 100°C and 400°C A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because: modifying the material of 16 to be plastic would allow for the desired melting temperature of the material to be set based on the properties of the plastic While Biondo fails to explicitly teach of the plastic melting in the claimed range, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the melting temperature of the plastic to be within the claimed range based on the following rationale: First, Biondo explicitly states that the temperature range can be higher (Biondo, Col. 5, lines 19-23, “the particular temperatures mentioned above are not intended to limit the scope of the present application and an artisan might set higher minimum temperatures without exceeding the scope of the present invention”) and further there is no evidence of record that establishes changing the temperature range of the combined teachings to be within the claimed range would result in a difference in function of the combined teachings. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the combined teachings, would have reasonable expectations of success in making such a modification and it appears the device of the combined teachings would function as intended being given the claimed temperature range. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem besides closing the flap in the presence of fire, which is achieved already within the combined teachings, and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the melting temperature of 16 to be within the claimed range as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe (US 3899156 A) in view of Tanner (US 4715268 A) and in further view of Bruno (US 20190112052 A1) . Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach of the ventilation device of claim 1, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach: An aircraft comprising: the ventilation device as claimed in claim 1. Bruno teaches of: an aircraft (abstract, “An airplane is provided”) with ducts (Fig. 1, see solid lines indicating ducts in the system) The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows: position the device of the combined teachings in the duct of an aircraft A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because: it would prevent fire from spreading through ducts in an aircraft Annotated Figures PNG media_image1.png 758 1224 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated Fig. 1 of McCabe PNG media_image2.png 682 951 media_image2.png Greyscale Annotated Fig. 2 of McCabe Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 11-12 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 11: Claim 11 recites “a folded lug positioned equidistantly from the right- and left-hand sides, having first flange fastened to the at least one flap and a second flange to which the first ends of the first and second fusible spacers are fastened” which is not taught by the combined teachings. McCabe fails to teach of a folded lug and the fusible spacer 16 of McCabe acts more as a buckle for strap 14 and is connected directly to the strap without a lug. Further, no known art teaches of two fusible spacers connected to a single point on a lug positioned equidistantly from the right- and left-hand sides. Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 recites “wherein, for each of the first and second spacers, the second connection comprises a folded lug positioned on the right- or left-hand side of the frame, having a first flange fastened to the right- or left-hand side of the frame and a second flange to which the second end of the first or second fusible spacer is fastened” which is not taught by the combined teachings. For similar reasons above, McCabe fails to teach of a folded lug and no known art teaches of multiple lugs positioned on both sides of the frame. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J GIORDANO whose telephone number is (571)272-8940. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fr 8 AM - 5 PM 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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. /MICHAEL JAMES GIORDANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/673,949 Page 2 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/673,949 Page 3 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/673,949 Page 4 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/673,949 Page 5 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/673,949 Page 6 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/673,949 Page 7 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/673,949 Page 8 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/673,949 Page 9 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/673,949 Page 10 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/673,949 Page 11 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/673,949 Page 12 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/673,949 Page 13 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/673,949 Page 14 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/673,949 Page 15 Art Unit: 3762
Prosecution Insights