`“x
`‘\\f
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`14/153,448
`
`01/13/2014
`
`Bodong Zhong
`
`CSPT-130US
`
`5089
`
`0mm” —RATNERPRESTIA m
`7590
`52473
`2200 RENAIS SANCE BLVD
`KOSANOVIC’ HELENA
`S UITE 350
`KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3749
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`07/17/2017
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`pcorrespondence @ratnerprestia.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 14/153,448 ZHONGI ET AL.
`
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`HELENA KOSANOVIC [SENS 3749
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`
`1)|:I Responsive to communication(s) filed on 6/29/17.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|ZI This action is non-final.
`2a)|:l This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 1-6,9 and 10 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`
`7)|Z| Claim(s)_,_1-6 9-10is/are rejected.
`8)|:| Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit
`:/'I’vaIW.usnI‘.0. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`iindex.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)I:l The drawing(s) filed on
`is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:l All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) I] InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20170709
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/153,448
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3749
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1. 1 14
`
`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 6/29/17
`
`has been entered.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis
`
`for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described
`as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to
`be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1-2, 5-6 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as Stanislaus GB
`
`542256
`
`Applicant’s admitted prior art teaches:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/153,448
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3749
`
`Regarding claim 1, an adapter structure of a ventilating fan (figs. 1, 2A, 28),
`
`comprising:
`
`an oval metal adapter 6 (fig. 2A, 2B) and an oval metal shutter 17 (fig. 2A, 28)
`
`provided in the metal adapter and being cooperated with a shape of the oval metal
`
`adapter (fig. 2A, 28), wherein
`
`a symmetry, axis of a longitudinal cross-section of the oval metal shutter in the
`
`horizontal direction 7 (fig. 2B) is a major axis, and a symmetry axis in the vertical
`
`direction 8 (fig. 2B) is a minor axis, the shutter is configured to be rotatable through a
`
`rotating shaft in the metal adapter (fig. 2A, 2B) ,
`
`Regarding claims 5-6, the rotating shaft 11 (fig. 2A) is formed on two inner sides
`
`of the metal adapter, (fig. 2A) and the shutter is formed by, two clamp parts
`
`(unnumbered part between elements 9 and 11, fig. 2A) are provided for clamping the
`
`rotating shaft and erected from left and right edges of the plate body to an
`
`outside surface (fig. 2A).
`
`It is not clear regarding claim 5, 6 whether the rotating shaft is made integrally to
`
`the metal adapter or not, however the courts have held making the apparatus integral
`
`where the prior art teaches separate does not distinguish over prior art and further that
`
`the use of an one piece construction instead the structure disclosed in [the prior art]
`
`would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice” (MPEP 2144.04 V, B). In this
`
`case weather the shaft is integral to the adapter or made separate to said adapter it is a
`
`matter of the design choice. Therefore the instant claim does not define overt the
`
`Applicant's admitted prior art.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/153,448
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3749
`
`Additionally, regarding claims, 5-6 it would have been obvious to one having
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use resin for the plate
`
`body, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select
`
`a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of
`
`obvious design choice. (.See In reLeshin, 125 USPQ 416. S_eee also Ballas Liquidating
`
`Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. Also MPEP 2144.07)
`
`Applicant’s admitted prior art does not teach about the curved shutter.
`
`Stanislaus teaches:
`
`Regarding claim 1, a curve point 20 (fig. 3) is provided between a projection point
`
`of a center line of the rotating shaft on the minor axis and a tail of the shutter (this
`
`limitation teaches the applicant’s admitted prior art), and a curve portion (25, fig. 3) of
`
`the shutter is formed by curving the shutter from the curve point to an inner surface side
`
`of the shutter (unnumbered inner surface of the upper surface of the shutter 20 (fig. 3))
`
`along the minor axis (and in combination with the Applicant’s admitted prior art) and a
`
`straight line portion (from the curved point to the opposite end of the shitter, fig. 3) is
`
`formed from a head end (where straight end of the shutter 20 ends opposite to the
`
`curved portion 25, fig. 3) of the oval metal shutter to the curve point in a direction of the
`
`minor axis (axis along the shutter, equivalent to the instant application minor axis), and
`
`wherein oval metal shutter has an outer perimeter,(unnumbered opposite ends of
`
`the shutter as seen in figures 2-3) ends of the shutter and the head end and the
`
`tail are positioned at opposite ends of the outer perimeter (figs 2-3) of the oval metal
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/153,448
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3749
`
`shutter in the direction of the minor axis (fig. 2—3 and in combination with the Admitted
`
`prior art).
`
`.
`
`Wherein the shutter is formed smoothly from the curve point to the tail (fig. 2-3)
`
`Regarding claim 2, the curve point is located on an upstream side (fig. 2—3)
`
`Regarding limitation of claim 3 that a distance is one third from the rotate shaft to
`
`the tail, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the
`
`prior art (see figure 2, where certain distance is provided between the rotate shaft to the
`
`tail 11c), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05
`
`Ila)
`
`In this case the Stanislaus teaches curtain distance is provided between the
`
`rotate shaft to the tail 11D, and having a specific distance of one third is not inventive
`
`according to the courts. Varying the distance between the rotate shaft to the tail is
`
`recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In
`
`this case varying the distance to start curving a plate at some particular distance from
`
`the shaft in order to achieve less turbulence through the duct in order to avoid noise is
`
`recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to have the Applicant’s admitted prior art modified with the Stanuslau curved
`
`shutter in order to control the turbulence through the shutter and thus prevent noise.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/153,448
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3749
`
`2.
`
`Claims 3-4 rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Applicant’s admitted prior art (figs 1, 2A and 2B) in view of Stanislaus 542,256 and
`
`further in view of Sano 6,431,257.
`
`Applicant’s admitted prior art in view of Stanislaus teaches the invention as
`
`discussed above but is not specific about the ribs.
`
`Sano teaches:
`
`Regarding claims 3-4, a rib is formed on the minor axis of the shutter (several
`
`unnumbered parallel ribs on a shutter 221, fig. 18), and a rib also is formed on a
`
`projection of the center line of the rotate shaft on the shutter (unnumbered rib in the
`
`middle of the shutter arranged in longitudinal direction between two elements 230 of the
`
`shutter 221, and being perpendicular to the unnumbered vertical ribs).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to have the Applicant’s admitted prior art in view of Stanislaus invention
`
`modified with the Sano vertical and horizontal ribs in order to provide stuffiness to the
`
`shutter and thus provide the apparatus more sturdy and thus prevent malfunction.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 9-10 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentableover Applicant’s admitted prior art (figs 1, 2A and 2B) in view of Stanislaus
`
`542,256 and further in view of Official Notice taken.
`
`Applicant’s admitted prior art in view of Stanislaus and Ammons teaches the
`
`invention as discuss above, but is silent about reinforcement part.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/153,448
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3749
`
`Claims 9-10 are rejected, because Official notice is taken that having a support
`
`part for the clamp plates is well known in the prior art.
`
`Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have
`
`support to the clamp plates in order to avoid malfunction of the apparatus and prolong
`
`its usage and thus make apparatus more affordable to the user.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 9-10 have been considered but
`
`are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in
`
`the current rejection.
`
`Further since the Applicant has not challenged the Official notice taken, it
`
`is assumed that the Applicant has agreed that it is known in the art to have the support
`
`part for the clamp plates in order to avoid malfunction of the apparatus and prolong its
`
`usage and thus make apparatus more affordable to the user.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to HELENA KOSANOVIC whose telephone number is
`
`(571 )272—9059. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/153,448
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3749
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Steve McAIIister can be reached on 571-272—6785. The fax phone number
`
`for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272—1000.
`
`/HELENA KOSANOVIC/
`
`Primary Examiner,
`Art Unit 3749
`
`070917
`
`