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 Amendment
The following office action is in response to the applicant’s submission filed on August 5, 2026. The following office action is final office action because applicant’s arguments were not found persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Further, the examiner would like to point out that the previous set of claims contained claims 27 and 28. The most recent set of claims filed on 8/5/2026 does not contain claims 27 and 28, and it does not state that said claims are cancelled, withdrawn, amended, etc. Since the claims are not present, it is assumed they have been cancelled. If applicant adds any new claims in response to the office action, the new claims should start with claim 29 and the status of claims 27 and 28 should be included in the new set of claims.
Claim 25 is also objected to because it depends upon itself. This was corrected in the previous set of claims but was changed back in the current set. Claim 25 was previously amended to be dependent upon claim 24. Claim 25 will be examined as being dependent upon claim 24 until further clarification is provided.
Finally, claims 21-26 were marked with the status identifier of (New). However, claims 21-26 were present in at least the previous set of claims and are therefore not new. Please correct the status identifiers in any response to this office action.
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 17 and 24-26 are 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 regard to claim 17, the scope of the claim is indefinite because the claim states that the one or more mullions are fitted with their edges in the transoms. However, it is believed that the transoms have their edges in the mullions. This is how the claim will be interpreted until further clarification is provided.
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) 9-17, 19-21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claeys (WO2017/201589) in view of Frederick (WO2018/191397).
For claims 9, 16, and 17, ‘589 discloses a curtain wall (fig. 1) that comprises one or more mullions (fig. 2, 5) and one or more transoms (14) and panels (4) that are fitted with their edges at least in the mullions, wherein the one or more mullions extend vertically and are provided on two opposite sides with a groove with an access opening, said grooves forming a rebate in which a lateral edge of an aforementioned panel is fitted, wherein the ends of the one or more transoms are provided with compressible head pieces (figs. 9-10), wherein the one or more transoms extend horizontally between two mullions and their ends are fitted with the head pieces in the grooves of these two mullions, wherein the one or more transoms are fastened to two mullions without the use of screws by fitting the ends of the one or more transoms with the head pieces in a recess in the aforementioned grooves of these two mullions (fig. 11), wherein the mullion is assembled from at least an inner profile (6) and an outer profile (7) joined together by means of one or more plastic profiles (fig. 6, 8), wherein the inner profile, the outer profile and the one or more plastic profiles are fastened to each other and are not dismountable from one another, wherein the transom is assembled from at least an inner profile 19 and an outer profile 20 joined together by means of one or more plastic profiles 22 (figure 8), and, as best understood, wherein the one or more mullions and the one or more transoms and the one or more panels are fitted with their edges in the mullions and in the transoms (Claeys figs. 1 and 2).
Claeys does not disclose that the plastic profiles consist essentially of a fiber-reinforced composite, the fiber-reinforced composite including fibers embedded in a resin matrix, wherein the resin matrix includes fire-retardant additives and/or fire-retardant fillers, or that at least the inner profile and the mullion or transom consists essentially of steel. Claeys teaches the use of aluminum. Frederick teaches the use of a curtain wall that has mullions that are made of an inner steel profile 30-34 or 130, an outer steel profile 36 [para. 3 steel or aluminum], and a fiber-reinforced composite member 40 (fiberglass is a fiber reinforced composite with fibers in a resin matrix) having fire retardant materials included therein [para. 48]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use steel for the inner profile and the fiber reinforced composite for the plastic profile of Claeys because steel will provide a strong material that will be capable of carrying the heavy glass sheets without failure. Also, the fiber reinforced composite will enhance the insulating properties of the mullions as taught by Frederick at least at para. 3. Further, Frederick even teaches that steel and aluminum are interchangeable.
In regard to claim 10, Claeys in view of Frederick disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the inner profile comprises a steel tube (‘397 figs. 2 and 3A).
In regard to claim 11, Claeys in view of Frederick disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the inner profile comprises a roll formed profile [‘397 para. 75].
In regard to claims 12 and 13, Claeys in view of Frederick disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the outer profile consists essentially of steel and comprises a roll formed profile as disclosed above in the rejection of claims 9 and 11.
In regard to claim 14, Claeys in view of Frederick disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Claeys, at least figure 2, discloses that the inner profile at least partially forms an undercut of the groove, i.e. where 36a is received.
In regard to claim 15, Claeys in view of Frederick disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the plastic profile is fire-resistant and/or consists of a fiber-reinforced composite. In the instant case, since the plastic disclosed by Frederick has fire retardant materials therein, it is at least to some degree fire-resistant. It is also a fiber-reinforced composite, i.e. fiberglass.
In regard to claim 19, Claeys in view of Frederick disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein at least one fastening attachment 36a is mounted in the undercut for fixing one or more glazing beads 35 thereon.
In regard to claim 20, Claeys in view of Frederick disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the panels are fitted at their edges in the transoms (Claeys figs. 4-5).
In regard to claims 21 and 24, Claeys in view of Frederick disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the fiber-reinforced composite includes glass fibers, i.e. Frederick discloses that the composite is fiberglass (Frederick para. 3).
Claim(s) 22, 23, 25, and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claeys (WO2017/201589) in view of Frederick (WO2018/191397) and further in view of Moller et al. (2017/0089120).
In regard to claims 22, 23, 25, and 26, Claeys in view of Frederick disclose the basic claimed invention except for specifically disclosing that the fibers are aramid fibers. Moller teaches that it is known to use aramid fibers or S-glass fiber when forming thermally insulating spacer profiles for separating profile sections in a curtain wall system [0052] and [0054]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use aramid fibers or S-glass fibers in the plastic member of Claeys, because both aramid fibers and S-glass fibers are very well-known in the art of plastics. They are well-known to increase the strength and thermal efficiency of the plastic. Further, replacing one well-known fiber with a different well-known fiber is well within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art. Finally, as taught by Moller [0054] by using fibers in the plastic, the density of the plastic can be reduced and a cost-optimization of the plastics material is possible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the applicant’s argument pertaining to the 112b rejection set forth in the previous office action with respect to claim 17, the rejection has been partially overcome, but it appears that the claim remains somewhat unclear. The revised 112b rejection of claim 17 is set forth above.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that the choice to make Claeys’ aluminum member out of steel in view of Frederick is not obvious, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Frederick clearly states in paragraph 3 that the metal structure of the mullions or transoms can be made of aluminum or steel. This is a teaching that both types of metals are interchangeable in the curtain wall art. Therefore, since Claeys’ mullions and transoms are made of aluminum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Claeys’ mullions and transoms out of steel as taught by Frederick. Further, this would be obvious because, as those of ordinary skill in the art know, steel is stronger than aluminum. Thus, the curtain wall would be capable of carrying larger loads.
With respect to the applicant’s argument that it would be more difficult to shape the steel because of the thinner and thicker sections, the examiner respectfully disagrees because, as one can see from Frederick’s drawings (especially at least figures 11, 13, and 15-18), that the shapes of the profiles are not merely straight walled structures. The walls have screw bosses formed therein and are of different thickness where some of the screw bosses and flanges are formed. Thus, if Frederick is able to form those shapes with steel, then there would be no reason that Claeys could not do the same. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Frederick is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Frederick is in the exact same field of endeavor, i.e. curtain walls, as that of Claeys. Frederick is also pertinent to Claeys because they are both curtain walls having mullions comprised of two metal sections separated by a plastic section to form a thermal break between the metals. Frederick provides the teaching of using a fiber reinforced composite member for the plastic member. Those of ordinary skill in the art know that fiber reinforced plastic is not only stronger than non-fiber reinforced plastic, but also less susceptible to expansion and contraction. This is an important feature in curtain wall systems because expansion and contraction of the members could lead to gaps in the system that could let heat in and cool air out or vice versa. The examiner is not incorporating the physical arrangement of Frederick and how their reinforced member is connected to the metal profiles. The examiner is merely incorporating Frederick’s teaching of a fiber reinforced plastic into Claeys’ invention.
For the reasons set forth above, the examiner contends that the combination of references as specifically set forth above is proper and reads on the applicant’s claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
