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.
Claims 14-15 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.
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 recites “there are one or two or more sets of friction reducing bearings provided on the blade support assembly spaced from one another along the hollow shaft” which is unclear. The claims optionally recites there being one set of friction bearings, two sets of friction bearings or more than two sets of friction bearings but further recites that the sets of friction bearings are spaced from one another. In a situation where there is a single set of friction bearings, it is unclear how they could have a spacing from themselves. Therefore the scope of the claim is indefinite since it is unclear if the claim intends for there to be more than one set of friction bearings or if there can be a single set of friction bearings.
Claim 15 is rejected based on its dependency to claim 14.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-9, 13-14, 16-19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andrews (US 6302778 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Andrews teaches of:
A roof ventilator (Fig. 1, 10) for use with a throat (24) mounted onto a roof so as, in use, to provide fluid communication between an interior of a roof space and an outside atmosphere (10 is mounted onto 24 which connects to a roof and provides fluid communication between a roof space and the atmosphere), the roof ventilator comprising:
a support assembly (16+22) for attaching the roof ventilator to the throat (10 is attached to 24 via 22), the support assembly comprising:
a body (16) having a top (upper portion of 16) and a bottom (lower portion of 16);
a plurality of support arms (22) extending from the body for engagement with an inside surface of the throat (22 extends from 16 and engage with an inside surface of 24), and
a passageway running through the body from the top to the bottom (see interior space of 16 in which 14 extends from the top to the bottom of 16);
a solar panel support assembly (40+44+69+70), for supporting a solar panel (70 is supported on 69), located at the top of the support assembly (40+44+69+70 is located at the top of 16);
a solar powered fan (53) powered by a motor (72), each of which are located at the bottom of the support assembly (53 is located at the bottom of the support assembly and Andrews explicitly states that the motor may be placed at the bottom as well; Col. 4, lines51-52, “The motor may be disposed at the base of the shaft and used to turn the fan 53”);
a blade support assembly (14+38+36) provided on the body rotatable relative to the body (14+38+36 all rotate relative to 16 since they hold blades 30 in place while they rotate);
a series of blades mounted to the blade support assembly (Figs. 1-2, there are a plurality of blades 30), the series of blades adapted to spin under influence of air movement from the outside atmosphere (Col. 4, lines 7-14, “The blades 30 are curved in section (see FIG. 2) and have a tip portion which is almost tangential to the circumference of the turbine hood. The tip portion defines two projections or ribs 50 which extend along the length of the blade (see FIG. 1) and assist the blades in catching wind and air currents, for turning the hood in the direction B. The blades are also curved along their length as is best seen in FIG. 1 so that the turbine hood is generally rounded.”);
wherein, electronic circuitry from the solar panel travels from the solar panel through the passageway to the motor that powers the solar powered fan (Fig. 1, with the motor being positioned at the bottom of 14 and the solar panel 70 being positioned at the top of the ventilator and the entire system of 10 rotating relative to 16 and 24, the electronic circuitry of the panel would have to travel through the passageway in which 14 is disposed in 16 to power the motor); and
wherein the roof ventilator is able to evacuate air either under the influence of movement of the first series of blades (Col. 4, lines 7-14, “The blades 30 are curved in section (see FIG. 2) and have a tip portion which is almost tangential to the circumference of the turbine hood. The tip portion defines two projections or ribs 50 which extend along the length of the blade (see FIG. 1) and assist the blades in catching wind and air currents, for turning the hood in the direction B. The blades are also curved along their length as is best seen in FIG. 1 so that the turbine hood is generally rounded.”) and/or by operation of the solar powered fan (Col. 4, lines ,52+53, “the fan 53 rotates about the shaft 14 it increases the flow of air through the turbine hood” and lines 58-60, “A number of solar panels 70 are mounted on the shelf used to supply power to a motor 72 for turning the shaft 14 on windless days.”).
Regarding claim 2, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 1, and Andrews further teaches of:
wherein the motor of the solar powered fan is fixed and does not rotate in use (The motor 72 would not rotate itself as it would need to output rotational motion to the shaft 14)
Regarding claim 3, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 1, and Andrews further teaches of:
wherein a cross-sectional area of the passageway of the throat is circular (24 is cylindrical and therefore has a circular cross-sectional are; Col. 3, line 45, “a cylindrical sleeve 24”)
Regarding claim 4, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 1, and Andrews further teaches of:
wherein there are three support arms extending from the body for engagement with the inside surface of the throat (there are a total of four support arms 22 therefore the roof ventilator has three support arms extending from the body to engage with the inside surface of 24; Col. 3, lines 43-46, “Four arms 22 extend away from the bearing housing in a cruciform configuration support the bearing housing and turbine hood above a cylindrical sleeve 24 through which hot air is to be drawn, in use”)
Regarding claim 8, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 1, and Andrews further teaches of:
wherein there are sixteen blades in the series of blades each arranged vertically adjacent to one another to form a ring shape (Fig. 2, there are twenty four total blades 30 and therefore there are sixteen blades within the series of blades 30, each of the blades 30 are vertically adjacent to one another and form a ring)
Regarding claim 9, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 1, and Andrews further teaches of:
wherein each blade is formed from a plurality of flat surfaces configured to provide an overall curve shape (Fig. 1, the top and bottom edges of 20 are flat and provide an overall curve shape of the blade)
Regarding claim 13, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 1, and Andrews further teaches of:
wherein the support assembly includes a hollow shaft (interior of 16 defines a hollow shaft), and the passageway through the body is formed by a wall of the hollow shaft (passageway as mapped in claim 1 is formed by the interior wall of shaft), wherein the electronic circuitry from the solar panel passes through the hollow shaft (with the position of the panel 72 at the top of 14 and the motor at the bottom of 14 and 44 rotating, the wires connecting the motor and the solar panel must pass through the hollow shaft of 16).
Regarding claim 14, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 1, and Andrews further teaches of:
wherein the blade support assembly is rotatable around the hollow shaft (14+40+42+44 are rotatable around hollow shaft in 16), which remains fixed and not rotatable in use (16 is fixed and not rotatable), and, in order to facilitate rotation, there are one or two or more sets of friction reducing bearings (Fig. 1, 18) provided on the blade support assembly spaced from one another along the hollow shaft (see 112(b) rejection above, there is a single bearing set and therefore it is not spaced from a further bearing seat).
Regarding claim 16, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 13, and Andrews further teaches of:
wherein the solar panel support assembly comprises a solar mount (69) having a frame that supports edges of the solar panel (flat surface of 69 on which 70 is positioned is the frame and supports the entire area of 70), and an elevator which elevates the frame upwards relative to the support assembly (see annotated version of Fig. 1 below).
Regarding claim 17, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 16, and Andrews further teaches of:
wherein the solar panel support assembly further comprises an upper platform (44) and a lower platform (40) arranged on the hollow shaft (40+44 is arranged on 16) for coupling the solar mount to the support assembly via the elevator (see annotated version of Fig. 1 below, the solar mount 69 is coupled to 40+44 via the elevator).
Regarding claim 18, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 17, and Andrews further teaches of:
wherein there is a solar mount foot at a lowermost part of the elevator of the solar mount (see annotated version of Fig. 1 below, the solar mount foot is positioned below the elevator and is therefore at the lowermost part of the elevator), and the solar mount foot can be received between the upper platform and the lower platform and then sandwiched into position (see annotated version of Fig. 1 below, the solar mount foot is sandwiched between 40 and 44).
Regarding claim 19, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 18, and Andrews further teaches of:
wherein a concentric rib (see annotated version of Fig. 1 below) is formed into the solar mount foot to increase rigidity and to facilitate sturdy fastening under a controlled fixing force, whilst allowing the solar panel to be movable relative to the throat (the solar panel is able to rotate with the rest of the system relative to 24).
Regarding claim 22, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 1, and Andrews further teaches of:
Installation of one or more roof ventilator(s) according to claim 1 onto a respective roof (Col. 2, lines 15-19, “it is known to install turbine roof ventilators to extract air from roof chambers which work on the well known principle that hot air rises, and which allow hotter air to escape from the roof chamber before the temperature of the air in the roof chamber rises excessively”)
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) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (US 6302778 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 1, Andrews further teaches:
wherein each support arm is an aerodynamic fin (22 can be considered an aerodynamic fin as all shapes have some form of aerodynamics to them and they extend from the body of the support assembly like a fin)
Andrews fails to explicitly teach:
having a substantially triangular shape with a wide part extending from the body and tapering to a location at which each support arm engages with the inside surface of the throat.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the roof ventilator of Andrews so that the support arms match the shape as described above based on the following rationale:
It has been found that when the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the shape of an element in the prior art, modifying the shape of the element to match the claims would not change the function of the prior art and applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed shape, then such a modification is obvious (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). In the instant case, modifying 22 so that it has a triangular shape extending from the body 16 and tapering to 22 would not modify the function of Andrews and applicant has placed no criticality on the triangular shape and only states that the support arms “can” be triangular (see Pg. 14 of applicant’s specification).
Regarding claim 6, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 5, and Andrews further teaches of:
wherein engagement of the support assembly to the throat is by a fixing mechanism located at the location at which each support arm engages with the inside surface of the throat (see fixing mechanism where 22 attaches to 24)
Regarding claim 7, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 1, and Andrews further teaches of:
longitudinal sides (Fig. 2, see longitudinal sides of 30 at each blades tip and tail) and an upper (Fig. 1, 36) and lower end (Fig. 1, 32), and the blades are each mounted at their upper and lower ends into a blade mount (38 and 34) that fixes them each blade into position (each 30 is mounted at 36 and 32 recesses 38 and 34 respectively that are a part of blade mount 40 and 42b).
Andrews fails to explicitly teach:
wherein each blade is a flat piece of material having a first face and a second face
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the blades to be flat instead of curved based on the following rationale:
It has been found that when the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the shape of an element in the prior art, modifying the shape of the element to match the claims would not change the function of the prior art and applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed shape, then such a modification is obvious (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). In the instant case, modifying the blades 30 to be flat instead of curved would not modify the function of Andrews and would still allow for the turbine hood of the roof ventilator to spin due to wind and further applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed shape of the blades and recites “The blades can be flat. The blades can be curved.” (Pg. 8 of applicant’s specification).
Claim(s) 10-12 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (US 6302778 B1) in view of Foreman (US 20120014813 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 1, however, Andrews fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the solar panel is substantially circular in shape and is inclined in a direction to optimise collection of sunlight.
Foreman teaches of:
wherein the solar panel is inclined in a direction to optimise collection of sunlight (Fig. 1, 302 is tiltable to optimally collect sunlight; ¶ [0025], “In one embodiment of the invention there is an Adjustable Solar Panel. It is important to capture as much of the available sunlight as possible. Orient the solar panel by tilting and/or swiveling the panel assembly to the position that will face the sun at it's highest point during the day.”)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
replace the solar panel of Andrews with the solar panel of Foreman so that the solar panel of Foreman is positioned on top of 26 of Andrews but still connected to the motor at the base of 14
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 allow for the solar panel to be positioned to capture the most amount of sun as it moves throughout the day (Foreman, ¶ [0025], “In one embodiment of the invention there is an Adjustable Solar Panel. It is important to capture as much of the available sunlight as possible. Orient the solar panel by tilting and/or swiveling the panel assembly to the position that will face the sun at it's highest point during the day.”)
While the combined teachings do not explicitly teach that the solar panel is circular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the solar panel so that it is circular based on the following rationale:
It has been found that when the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the shape of an element in the prior art, modifying the shape of the element to match the claims would not change the function of the prior art and applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed shape, then such a modification is obvious (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). In the instant case, modifying the shape of the solar panel of Foreman would not impact the functionality of the solar panel collecting sunlight and powering the fan within the roof ventilator of Andrews and further applicant has placed no criticality on the circular shape and explicitly states that “The solar panel can have any shape” (Pg. 9 of applicant’s specification)
Regarding claim 11, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 1, however, Andrews fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the solar panel is open to sunlight without any obstruction between photovoltaic cells of the solar panel and rays of the sunlight rays that strike the photovoltaic cells.
Foreman teaches of:
wherein the solar panel is open to sunlight without any obstruction between photovoltaic cells of the solar panel and rays of the sunlight rays that strike the photovoltaic cells (Fig. 3, 302 is open to sunlight)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
replace the solar panel of Andrews with the solar panel of Foreman so that the solar panel of Foreman is positioned on top of 26 of Andrews but still connected to the motor at the base of 14
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 allow for the solar panel to be positioned to capture the most amount of sun as it moves throughout the day (Foreman, ¶ [0025], “In one embodiment of the invention there is an Adjustable Solar Panel. It is important to capture as much of the available sunlight as possible. Orient the solar panel by tilting and/or swiveling the panel assembly to the position that will face the sun at it's highest point during the day.”)
Regarding claim 12, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 1, however, Andrews fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the solar panel support assembly is rotatable relative to the throat to change an orientation of the solar panel.
Foreman teaches of:
wherein the solar panel support assembly is rotatable relative to the throat to change [[the]] an orientation of the solar panel (Fig. 3, 302 is rotatable relative to the rest of the vent; ¶ [0011], “a tiltable and rotatable solar array 302”)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
replace the solar panel of Andrews with the solar panel of Foreman so that the solar panel of Foreman is positioned on top of 26 of Andrews but still connected to the motor at the base of 14
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 allow for the solar panel to be positioned to capture the most amount of sun as it moves throughout the day (Foreman, ¶ [0025], “In one embodiment of the invention there is an Adjustable Solar Panel. It is important to capture as much of the available sunlight as possible. Orient the solar panel by tilting and/or swiveling the panel assembly to the position that will face the sun at it's highest point during the day.”)
Regarding claim 20, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 1, however, Andrews fails to explicitly teach:
wherein power generated by the roof ventilator can be captured and stored in a battery.
Foreman teaches of:
wherein power generated by the roof ventilator can be captured and stored in a battery (¶ [0009], “In one embodiment of the invention, when the fan is not in use, the solar panel may recharge a battery for later use”)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
connect the solar panel 70 to a battery that can be charged by the solar panel and provide power to the motor of the system as needed
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 allow for the battery to be used on days were there is little sunlight and no wind
Regarding claim 21, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 1, however, Andrews fails to explicitly teach:
wherein operation of the roof ventilator is monitorable and or controllable by an electronic device
Foreman teaches of:
wherein operation of the roof ventilator is monitorable and or controllable by an electronic device (¶ [0009], “In one embodiment of the invention the solar panel output may be controlled by a computer which may be connected to a network.”)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
connect the solar panel output of Andrews to a computer
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 allow for the output of the solar panel to be monitored remotely
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (US 6302778 B1) in view of Munn (US 20040097184 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Andrews teaches of the roof ventilator according to claim 14, however, Andrews fails to explicitly teach:
Wherein a first series of the one or two or more sets of friction reducing bearings is spaced by about 5 mm from a second series of the one or two or more sets of friction reducing bearings.
Munn teaches of:
A first series of the one or two or more sets of friction reducing bearings is spaced from a second series of the one or two or more sets of friction reducing bearings (Fig. 6, see double bearing race 30 which two sets of bearings; ¶ [0050], “the double race ball bearing unit 30 includes a central shaft 32, and an outer casing 34 which rotates on the central shaft 32. The central shaft 32 and outer casing 34 have corresponding ball bearing races 36 and 38 between which are tracked a plurality of ball bearings 40 to support the configuration”).
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
Replace bearings 18 of Andrews with bearings 30 of Munn
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 provide greater lateral stability over the single rave bearing 18 of Andrews (Munn, ¶ [0057], “One example of an advantage in using a double race ball bearing unit is that double race ball bearing units are more laterally stable and stronger than single race ball bearing units”)
While the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach that the bearing sets are spaced about 5 mm from one another, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found such a modification obvious based on the following rationale:
It has been held 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 the combined teachings would not operate different with the claimed spacing between the bearing sets and applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed spacing, reciting a plurality of different dimension possible for the spacing (see page 7 lines 23-25 of applicant’s specification, “There can be a first series of friction reducing bearings spaced by about 5, 8, 10, 15 mm from a second series of friction reducing bearings”)
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
760
955
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Andrews
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
Prosecution Insights