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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/534,501, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Claims 1-16 are not supported in Application No. 17/534,501 and therefore claims 1-16 have the filing date of the instant application, that filing date being 08/06/2024.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “said folded metal insert” which lacks antecedent basis. The examiner believes the claims should recite “said folded screen insert” as the folded screen insert is further claimed to be metal in dependent claim 5. For compact prosecution the Examiner is interpreting the limitation “said folded metal insert” as further limiting the folded screen insert as being made of metal.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 recites “wherein said folded screen insert is made of metal” however claim 1 already introduces the folded screen insert as being metal. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-5, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallery (US 20240183550 A1) in view of Chapman (US 6056809 A) and DE 202012102638 U1 hereinafter referred to as Ref. 1.
Regarding claim 1, Vallery teaches of:
A high-flow ember shield building ventilator for use with roof or attic exhaust openings (Fig. 1A, 100; ¶ [0030], “A roof ventilation system 100 disclosed herein obstructs moisture (e.g., snow and rain) and debris, such as plant debris, dust, dirt, animals, and/or insects, among other debris, from entry into a vented space (e.g., an attic) of a structure or dwelling”), comprising:
a substantially rectangular outer frame portion (102) with four side walls (114) and a bottom wall (112);
a screen insert (Figs. 6-11, 104) inserted into an opening of said frame portion formed by said side walls and said bottom wall (104 is inserted into the opening formed by 112 and 114 of 102);
a frame (106) having a screen installed thereon (Figs. 13-19, 150 is installed on 106), wherein said frame and said screen are mounted onto said rectangular frame portion and over said insert (Fig. 16, frame 106 with screen 150 are mounted onto 102 and would be positioned over 104 which is flush with the surfaces of 102; ¶ [0039], “In some examples, the roof ventilation system 100 includes a grill 150 (e.g., a pyramid shaped grill) that may be used in addition to or instead of the filter 104”).
Vallery fails to explicitly teach:
a folded screen insert
said folded metal insert
a cylindrical frame
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the frame of Vallery to be cylindrical (and therefore the screen 150 to be conical to match the shape of the frame) instead of rectangular based on the following rationale:
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a cylindrical frame with a screen instead of a rectangular frame with a screen, because Applicant has not disclosed that the cylindrical frame provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the Applicant’s invention to perform equally with a cylindrical or rectangular frame shape because both shapes perform the function of conveying air out of an attic equally well (MPEP 2144.04 IV B)
Chapman teaches of:
A folded screen insert (Figs. 1-2, see screen 12 with folds 24)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
Add folds to the screen 104
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 increase the surface area of the screen, improving the number of particles able to be caught by the screen without increasing resistance to the air (Chapman, Col. 3, lines 62-66, “The filter of the invention is optimally angled to capture particles. It can be cleaned by shaking and/or by washing. The media has low pressure drop and high efficiency for the range of particles experienced with the inlet air”)
Ref. 1 teaches of:
said folded screen insert is made of metal (Figs. 1-2, 2 is a folded metal screen; ¶ [0006], “A screen body comprises several layers of metal wire”)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
make the folded screen insert of the combined teachings out of metal wire
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 is sturdier than other materials and easier to clean (Ref. 1, ¶ [0007])
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach of the high-flow ember shield building ventilator of claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
further comprising at least one attachment clip (Figs. 2A-5C, 124) for mounting said cylindrical frame onto said rectangular frame (124 is used to mount 102 onto 106 via 126)
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach of the high-flow ember shield building ventilator of claim 2, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein said at least one attachment clip comprises four spaced apart attachment clips (Fig. 4C, there are four spaced apart clips 124)
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach of the high-flow ember shield building ventilator of claim 1, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein said folded screen insert has a plurality of folds at a substantially 15 degree angle.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the folds of the folded screen insert at substantially 15 degree angles based on the following rationale:
Chapman teaches that the angle of the folds of folded screen insert needs to be optimized to capture particles and have low pressure drop (Col. 3, lines 62-67). As seen in table 2 of Chapman, the angle of the folds is disclosed to be an result effective variable in that changing the angle changes the efficiency of the screen. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectations of success in modifying the combined teachings to have an angle of 15 degrees as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment, Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the combined teachings by making the angle of the folds to be 15 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (MPEP 2144.05 II)
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach of the high-flow ember shield building ventilator of claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein said folded screen insert is made of metal (see combination made with Ref. 1 in the rejection of claim 1 above and further see claim objection)
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach of the high-flow ember shield building ventilator of claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein said screen has an outward curvature (see modification made in the rejection of claim 1, the screen 150 is modified to have a conical shape to match the shape of the frame and therefore would have an outward curvature)
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach of the high-flow ember shield building ventilator of claim 1, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein said screen is made of metal.
Ref. 1 teaches of:
a screen made of metal (Figs. 1-2, 2 is a metal screen; ¶ [0006], “A screen body comprises several layers of metal wire”)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
make the screen of the combined teachings out of metal wire
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 is sturdier than other materials and easier to clean (Ref. 1, ¶ [0007])
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallery (US 20240183550 A1) in view of Chapman (US 6056809 A) and in further view of Greer (US 20240382784 A1)
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach of the high-flow ember shield building ventilator of claim 1, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein said folded screen insert has a plurality of openings of about 1/8 inch in size.
Greer teaches of:
wherein said folded screen insert has a plurality of openings of about 1/8 inch in size (¶ [0072], “The current mesh sizes for ventilation have been based on embodiments with two aperture sizes: ⅛″ to protect against animals, insect entry and large ember entry into cavities”)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify the size of the openings of the folded screen insert of the combined teachings to be about 1/8 inch
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 is abundantly known in the art of ventilators to that 1/8 of an inch is the standard size to protect a home against the entry of embers that are large enough to ignite the materials of a home, therefore utilizing such a sized opening would protect a home against fires (see ¶ [0072] of Greer)
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach of the high-flow ember shield building ventilator of claim 1, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein said screen has a mesh comprising openings of about 1/8 inches in size.
Greer teaches of:
wherein said screen has a mesh comprising openings of about 1/8 inches in size (¶ [0072], “The current mesh sizes for ventilation have been based on embodiments with two aperture sizes: ⅛″ to protect against animals, insect entry and large ember entry into cavities”)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify the size of the openings of the screen 150 of the combined teachings to be about 1/8 inch
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 is abundantly known in the art of ventilators to that 1/8 of an inch is the standard size to protect a home against the entry of embers that are large enough to ignite the materials of a home, therefore utilizing such a sized opening would protect a home against fires (see ¶ [0072] of Greer)
Claim(s) 10-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metz (US 3093059 A) in view of Kondo (US 4834700 A).
Regarding claim 10, Metz teaches of:
A high-flow ember shield configuration for use with a roof or attic exhaust ventilation system (Figs. 1-6, Col. 1, line 9, “This invention relates to roof ventilators”) comprising:
a cylindrical frame (15+16+31);
a screen insert formed of mesh (21);
wherein said screen is inserted into said cylindrical frame (21 is inserted into the cylindrical frame) for preventing embers and other debris entering the exhaust ventilation system (the screen prevents the ingress of debris into the system and would be capable of preventing embers from entering the system).
Metz fails to explicitly teach:
a screen insert formed of concentric rings of mesh
Kondo teaches of:
a screen insert formed of concentric rings of mesh (Fig. 1, 10a is a filter element with concentric rings 12)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify the shape of 21 of Metz so that it has folds in the shape of concentric rings with at least three rings
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:
adding folds to the screen increases the surface area of the screen, improving its ability to capture debris without restricting air flow
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach of the high-flow ember shield of claim 10, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein said shield comprises a first ring, a second ring and a third ring which are concentric to each other (Kondo, Fig. 1, (C), 10A has a first, second and third ring 12, each are concentric to each other; abstract, “A ring-shaped corrugated filter element blank having radially alternate peak and valley folds is placed on a first mold having as many first concentric projections”)
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach of the high-flow ember shield of 11, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein said second ring has a diameter greater than said first ring (the second ring surrounds the first ring and therefore has a diameter greater than the first ring)
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach of the high-flow ember shield of claim 12, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein said third ring has a diameter greater than said second ring (the third ring surrounds the second ring and therefore has a diameter greater than the second ring)
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach of the high-flow ember shield of claim 10, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein said concentric rings are formed by adjacent portions of said screen insert having an angle formed therebetween (Kondo, Figs. 6A-6B, see rings 12a formed by adjacent portions having an angle formed therebetween)
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metz (US 3093059 A) in view of Kondo (US 4834700 A) and in further view of DE 202012102638 U1 hereinafter referred to as Ref. 1
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach of the high-flow ember shield of claim 10, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein said screen insert is made of metal.
Ref. 1 teaches of:
wherein said screen insert is made of metal (Figs. 1-2, 2 is a folded metal screen; ¶ [0006], “A screen body comprises several layers of metal wire”)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
make the screen of the combined teachings out of metal wire
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 is sturdier than other materials and easier to clean (Ref. 1, ¶ [0007])
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metz (US 3093059 A) in view of Kondo (US 4834700 A) and in further view of Chapman (US 6056809 A)
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach of the high-flow ember shield of claim 15, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein said angle is about 15 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the folds of the folded screen insert at substantially 15 degree angles based on the following rationale:
Chapman teaches that the angle of the folds of folded screen insert needs to be optimized to capture particles and have low pressure drop (Col. 3, lines 62-67). As seen in table 2 of Chapman, the angle of the folds is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the angle changes the efficiency of the screen. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectations of success in modifying the combined teachings to have an angle of 15 degrees as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment, Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the combined teachings by making the angle of the folds to be 15 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (MPEP 2144.05 II)
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
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights