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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12096723. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both teaches “a roof panel; the roof panel having an opening therein; a lid operatively connected to the roof panel adjacent the opening; the lid configured to move between an open position, wherein the opening in the roof panel is at least partially uncovered by the lid, and a closed position, wherein the opening in the roof panel is covered by the lid; a sealing member attached to a bottom side of the lid; and wherein the sealing member is configured to seal the opening when the lid is moved to the closed position; an actuator operably connected to the lid; and a control system communicatively connected to the actuator; wherein the control system is configured to cause the actuator to move the lid between the open position and the closed position in response to a user input.”.
Claim 16+18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1+6 of U.S. Patent No. 12096723 as well as claim 19+20 of U.S. Patent No. 12096723. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both teaches “a roof panel; the roof panel having an opening therein; a lid operatively connected to the roof panel adjacent the opening; the lid configured to move between an open position, wherein the opening in the roof panel is uncovered by the lid, and a closed position, wherein the opening in the roof panel is covered by the lid; a lever connected to the lid; wherein when the lever is pulled down with a force greater than a threshold bias force, the lid is moved to the closed position; wherein the lever is configured to extend beyond an edge of the roof panel; a bias member; the bias member operatively connected to the roof panel and the lid; the bias member configured to apply a bias force to the lid; and wherein the bias force of the bias member is configured to automatically move the lid to the open position.”.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weller (US 4798410) in view of Daniels (US 20190331355).
Regarding claim 1, Weller teaches a roof vent system “for a grain storage device” (this is intended use), comprising:
a roof panel (roof frame 4, fig 10);
the roof panel having an opening (roof opening 3, fig 10) therein;
a lid (5, fig 10) operatively connected to the roof panel adjacent the opening;
the lid configured to move between an open position (shown in fig 5, when lid 5 is lifted), wherein the opening in the roof panel is at least partially uncovered by the lid, and a closed position (when cover is completed closed), wherein the opening in the roof panel is covered by the lid;
a sealing member (6) attached to a bottom side (bottom side of lid 5) of the lid; and
wherein the sealing member is configured to provide a seal between the lid and the roof panel when the lid is moved to the closed position (col 2 lines43-46, “In a closed position A, a sealing device 6 that is arranged at the edge of the cover 5, while being prestressed, rests against an upright wall portion 7 of the roof frame 4”).
Well fails to teach an actuator operably connected to the lid;
a control system communicatively connected to the actuator;
wherein the control system is configured to cause the actuator to move the lid between the open position and the closed position in response to user input.
Daniels teaches an actuator (172, fig 20) operably connected to a lid (158, fig 20);
a control system (302+306+312, fig 20) communicatively connected to the actuator;
wherein the control system is configured to cause the actuator to move the lid between the open position and the closed position ([0092] “The controller 302 preferably also has the ability to control the precise position of the vent door 158”) in response to user input (312, fig 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Weller as taught by Daniels by incorporating a controller and actuator to the closure/lid in order to allow user to set desired condition to automatically control the opening degree of the closure/lid.
Regarding claim 2, Weller in view of Daniels teaches the actuator includes an electro mechanical actuator (electrical motor 172).
Regarding claim 3, Weller in view of Daniels teaches in response to the user input, the control system automatically causes the actuator to move (See Daniels fig 20)) the lid between the open position and the closed position to control one or more environmental conditions within the grain bin.
Regarding claim 4, Weller in view of Daniels teaches one or more sensors (Dainel 306, fig 20) configured to measure one or more environmental conditions in the grain bin (Daniels [0071] “The sensors 306 can be configured to sense a variety of different atmospheric qualities, such as, without limitation, (1) the absolute pressure in the building, (2) the pressure differential between the building's interior and exterior, (3) the temperature in the building, (4) the temperature differential between the building's interior and exterior,”); wherein in response to the user input, the control system automatically causes the actuator to move the lid between the open position and the closed position based on measurements from the sensors (See Daniels fig 20).
Regarding claim 8, Weller in view of Daniels teaches the sealing member is an airtight seal (Wells col 2 lines 43-46, “In a closed position A, a sealing device 6 that is arranged at the edge of the cover 5, while being prestressed, rests against an upright wall portion 7 of the roof frame 4”. Weller’s sealing structure is capable of being airtight).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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.
Claims 16 and 18 would be allowable if they overcome double patenting rejections, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 9-15, 17, 19-27 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KO-WEI LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30 Eastern Time.
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.
/KO-WEI LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights