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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/28/2026 has been entered.
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, 3-4, 6, 9 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (2005/0233691) in view of Nystrom (5924925), Tovmasyan (9447583) and Daniels (D755944).
Horton figure 2, shows a roof vent for a building having a roof deck with one or more ventilation apertures therethrough, the roof vent comprising: a vent body having an upslope edge(where edge of 14 is) and a downslope edge(the edge of where 23 is), the vent body formed by a vent cover secured to a substructure (rooftop supporting structure) and a downslope vent opening along the downslope edge of the roof vent, a diverter(21) integrated into the downslope edge of the roof support, the diverter downslope of the downslope vent opening.
Horton does not show the vent body formed by a vent cover secured to a sub-flashing forming a vent cavity therebetween, the sub-flashing including a ventilation opening in fluid communication with at least one of the ventilation apertures, the vent cavity and the downslope vent opening; a diverter integrated into the downslope edge of the sub-flashing, a screen covering the ventilation opening in the subflashing, a base adjacent to the subflashing and a plurality of drainage holes through the base.
Nystrom (figure 2-6) shows the vent body formed by a vent cover(36) secured to a sub-flashing(28) forming a vent cavity therebetween, the sub-flashing including a ventilation opening in fluid communication with at least one of the ventilation apertures, the vent cavity and the downslope vent opening; a diverter(70) integrated into the downslope edge of the sub-flashing.
Tovmasyan shows a base adjacent to the subflashing and a plurality of drainage holes(126) through the base.
Daniels figure 3 shows a screen covering the ventilation opening in the subflashing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Horton’s structure to show the vent body formed by a vent cover secured to a sub-flashing forming a vent cavity therebetween, the sub-flashing including a ventilation opening in fluid communication with at least one of the ventilation apertures, the vent cavity and the downslope vent opening; a diverter integrated into the downslope edge of the sub-flashing as taught by Nystrom with a reasonable expectation of success in order to waterproof the attachment of the vent body and the roof top, and having a screen covering the ventilation opening in the subflashing as taught by Daniels, and a base adjacent to the subflashing and a plurality of drainage holes through the base as taught by Tovmasyan would enable the control of animals/debris through the opening, and having the drainage holes allows for the quick drainage of water from the diverter onto the rooftop.
Per claim 3, Horton further shows the diverter is positioned downslope of the downslope vent opening at least a distance that is at least one of about 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, or 115% of a height of the front opening.
Per claim 4, Horton as modified further shows the space between the vent cover secured to a sub-flashing is bounded by side walls on lateral edges.
Per claim 6, Horton further shows the roof vent is a flat tile vent.
Per claim 9, Horton further shows the roof vent is a tapered composition vent.
Claim(s) 2, 5 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (2005/0233691) in view of Nystrom (5924925), Tovmasyan (9447583) and Daniels (D755944).
Horton as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for the diverter has a height of at least one inch, the diverter has a height of no more than 1.75 inches.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Horton’s modified structure to show the diverter has a height of at least one inch, the diverter has a height of no more than 1.75 inches with a reasonable expectation of success since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Horton’s modified diverter to the size/dimension as deemed needed.
Claim(s) 7-8 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (2005/0233691) in view of Nystrom (5924925), Tovmasyan (9447583) and Daniels (D755944).
Horton as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for the roof vent is an M-shaped vent, wherein the roof vent is an S-shaped vent.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Horton to show the roof vent is an M-shaped vent, wherein the roof vent is an S-shaped vent since M-shaped vent, S-shaped vent, and flat tile vent are well known design shaped vents for forming roof vents.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art shows different roof coverings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI D Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-6864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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 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.
/PHI D A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights