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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The previous drawing objections remain as the corrected drawing sheets submitted do not show a shoulder as claimed.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “an edge of said wall opening” of claim 1 and “wherein said casing frame comprises a shoulder extending from an inner edge of the casing frame” of claims 1 and 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In further regards to claim 1, lines 7-8 “wherein said wall opening said casing frame comprises a shoulder”. Should be just “wherein said casing frame comprises a shoulder”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 8 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.
In regards to claim 1, “having an inner edge across from said edge of said wall opening” is unclear. From the specification and drawings, it’s difficult to determine how the opening and inner edge are across from each other. The examiner is assuming the term “across” is misused. Although Merriam-Webster defines Across as “on the opposite side of” this is reefing in relation to a separate object (i.e. the store is across the road or my friend lives across the border) however, as best understood, the term used here is trying to refer to the edges being on opposite sides of the frame (one edge is a part of the frame while the other is on the mobile accommodation body, this makes it difficult to best interpret). For the purposes of examination, the limitation is assumed to read “having an inner edge surrounded by said edge of said wall opening”.
In regards to claim 2, it’s unclear “which acute angle is at least substantially complementary to the obtuse angle of the pivot axis” is unclear. Specifically, as two complimentary angles define 90 degrees however an obtuse angle is over 90 degrees. It’s unclear how an angle over 90 degrees and an acute angle are complimentary. The drawing and specification of the instant application do not provide further clarification. For the purposes of examination, as long as the angles overlap the limitation is assumed to be met.
In regards to claim 3, claim limitation “manually releasable locking means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The instant application fails to show or sufficiently describe the locking means. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In regards to claim 8, “said casing frame having an inner edge across from an outer edge” is unclear. From the specification and drawings, it’s difficult to determine how the opening and inner edge are across from each other. The examiner is assuming the term “across” is misused. Although Merriam-Webster defines Across as “on the opposite side of” this is reefing in relation to a separate object (i.e. the store is across the road or Canada is across the border) however, as best understood, the term used here is trying to refer to the edges being on opposite sides of the frame. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is assumed to read “said casing frame having an inner edge opposite from an outer edge”.
In further regards to claim 8, “the window is pre-mounted inside said casing frame” is unclear. To the examiners understanding of the specification the window is pre mounted with the frame before being applied to the mobile accommodation. Thus it’s “pre” due to the mounting of the window and frame occurring before the mounting to the mobile accommodation. However, claim 8 is only drawn to a framed window and not a mobile accommodation. Thus arises the question on how “pre mounted” is intended to limit the scope. For the purposes of examination as long as the window is mountable to a mobile accommodation, the limitation is assumed to be met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Resibois EP 1574646 A1 (hereinafter Resibois), DE 202016103814 U1 (hereinafter DE ‘814), Isfort EP 1391334 A1 (hereinafter Isfort), and Lambert GB 2282178 A
In regards to claim 1, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Resibois teaches a mobile accommodation comprising a wall (4) with a wall opening (opening for the window see fig 9) that accommodates a window (9) inside an edge of said wall opening (edge of 4 facing the window, see fig 10), wherein said window is mounted in a casing frame (frame with 8) that surrounds said window (see figs 10 and 11), having an inner edge (edge facing the window and inward of the wall opening) across from said edge of said wall opening, wherein the window is arranged in said wall opening by means of said casing frame (see fig 10), inside said casing frame and wherein said window is provided with closing means (1) for keeping said window in a closed position within said casing frame (see fig 10), wherein said wall opening said casing frame comprises a shoulder (8) extending from [[an]] the inner edge of the casing frame (see fig 10), wherein the closing means comprise a closure having a handle (handle of 1) which is connected for rotation about a pivot axis (see figs 3 and 5; note pivot seen in fig 6) to the window and having a protrusion (portion engaging 8, see fig 10), wherein said handle is displaceable between a first position round said pivot axis (see fig 10) and a second position (see fig 9) round said pivot axis, wherein said protrusion engages at said inner edge with said shoulder on said casing frame in a closing co-operation in said first position of said handle (see fig 10), wherein said protrusion disengages from said shoulder in order to release the window in said second position of said handle (para 31), wherein said handle is oriented substantially parallel to the window in said first position (see fig 10), wherein said casing frame comprises hanging and closing fittings for said window (1, 3), including said closing means (1) and opening arms (3), wherein said casing frame is arranged inside said wall opening together with said hanging and closing fittings, including said closing means (see fig 10 and note fig 7).
However, Resibois does not teach the window is a transparent or translucent window. This is extremely common however.
DE ‘814 teaches a transparent window (see fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have Resibois’ window be transparent, such as in DE ‘814, in order to clearly see out of it.
Additionally, Resibois does not teach wherein said window hinges along a hinge side thereof. Although this is very common Resibois is silent on a hinged side.
Isfort teaches wherein said window hinges along a hinge side thereof (at 46, See fig 2) and a line hinge (see fig 2 and para 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have applied a hinged side on an upper edge of Resibois (wrt fig 4) such as in Isfort as doing so is a well-known and conventional way of allowing a window to pivot open.
Additionally, Resibois does not teach wherein said pivot axis makes an obtuse angle with said window, which angle opens toward said hinge side of said window and wherein said handle makes an acute angle, opening toward said hinge side, in said second position.
Lambert teaches a similar closing means with an axis provided at an obtuse angle relative to the window (see fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have modified Resibois such that his pivot axis is at an angle in order to provide for a tight closure (Lambert page 1 lines 12-17).
With the modifications above Resibois in view of DE ‘814, Isfort and Lambert teaches wherein a pivot axis makes an obtuse angle with said window (as modified by Lambert), which angle opens toward said hinge side of said window (see Lambert fig 2) and wherein said handle makes an acute angle, opening toward said hinge side, in said second position (see Resibois fig 4, with the handle pivoting about a tilted axis the handle would make an acute angle, and at least the left bottom closing means would open towards said hinge side).
In regards to claim 2, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections Resibois in view of DE ‘814, Isfort and Lambert teaches a mobile accommodation as claimed in claim 1, wherein the closure comprises a base part (Resibois: see base in ghost lines behind 1 in fig 6) which is firmly connected to the window (Resibois abstract; abstract is found in original translation provided) at a first interface (Resibois: see fig 6), wherein the closure comprises a top part (Resibois portion connected to the pivot, see fig 6) from which the handle extends (Resibois see fig 6), wherein the top part is connected for rotation about the pivot axis to the base part at a second interface (Resibois portion of the base contacting the pivot), and wherein the second interface makes an acute angle with the first interface (Lambert see fig 2), which acute angle is at least substantially complementary to the obtuse angle of the pivot axis (see reference image 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
421
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference image 1
In regards to claim 8, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Resibois teaches a framed window, comprising a casing frame (frame with 8) surrounding a window (9, note fig 3), said casing frame having an inner edge (edge facing 9 and inwards, see fig 10) across from an outer edge (edge facing 4, see fig 10) of said casing frame, wherein the window is pre-mounted inside said casing frame within said inner edge (see fig 9), wherein said casing frame comprises closing means (1) for keeping the window in a closed position, wherein said casing frame comprises a shoulder (8) extending from the inner edge of the casing frame (see fig 10), wherein the closing means comprise a closure having a handle (handle of 1) which is connected for rotation about a pivot axis (note figs 4-5 and fig 6) to the window (abstract and fig 6) and having a protrusion (portion contacting 8 in fig 10), wherein said handle is displaceable between a first position (see fig 10) round said pivot axis and a second position (see fig 9) round said pivot axis, wherein said protrusion engages at said inner edge with said shoulder on said casing frame in a closing co-operation in said first position of said handle (see fig 10), wherein said protrusion disengages from said shoulder in order to release the window in said second position of said handle (see fig 9 and para 31), wherein said handle is oriented substantially parallel to the window in said first position (see fig 10), wherein said casing frame comprises hanging and closing fittings for said window, including said closing means (1) and opening arms (3).
However, Resibois does not teach the window is a transparent or translucent window. This is extremely common however.
DE ‘814 teaches a transparent window (see fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have Resibois’ window be transparent, such as in DE ‘814, in order to clearly see out of it.
Additionally, Resibois does not teach wherein said window hinges along a hinge side thereof. Although this is very common Resibois is silent on a hinged side.
Isfort teaches wherein said window hinges along a hinge side thereof (at 46, See fig 2) and a line hinge (see fig 2 and para 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have applied a hinged side on an upper edge of Resibois (wrt fig 4) such as in Isfort as doing so is a well-known and conventional way of allowing a window to pivot open.
Additionally, Resibois does not teach wherein said pivot axis makes an obtuse angle with said window, which angle opens toward said hinge side of said window and wherein said handle makes an acute angle, opening toward said hinge side, in said second position.
Lambert teaches a similar closing means with an axis provided at an obtuse angle relative to the window (see fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have modified Resibois such that his pivot axis is at an angle in order to provide for a tight closure (Lambert page 1 lines 12-17).
With the modifications above Resibois in view of DE ‘814, Isfort and Lambert teaches wherein a pivot axis makes an obtuse angle with said window (as modified by Lambert), which angle opens toward said hinge side of said window (see Lambert fig 2) and wherein said handle makes an acute angle, opening toward said hinge side, in said second position (see Resibois fig 4, with the handle pivoting about a tilted axis the handle would make an acute angle, and at least the left bottom closing means would open towards said hinge side wrt fig 4).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Resibois in view of DE ‘814, Isfort and Lambert as applied to claim 1-2 and 8 above, and further in view of Pearce et al. GB 2302128 A (hereinafter Pearce).
In regards to claim 3, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Resibois in view of DE ‘814, Isfort and Lambert teaches the mobile accommodation as claimed in claim 1.
However, Resibois does not teach wherein the closure comprises manually releasable locking means which fix the closure in the first position.
Pearce teaches wherein a similar closure (24 and 28) comprises manually releasable locking means (16) which fix the closure in the first position See fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Resibois with locking means such as in Pearce in order to further improve security (see page 5 first paragraph to page 6 second paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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, Christine M Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675