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 .
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 1-3, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (U.S. Patent No. 2,263,813) in view of Helig (U.S. Patent No. 2,597,484) and Altieri (U.S. Patent No. 9,234,388).
Regarding claim 1, Mason discloses a screen [FIG. 1] comprising:
a frame (2) adapted for installation into a casing without a screen retaining channel (the limitation “adapted for installation” constitutes a recitation of intended use; the screen of Mason is capable of being used in the recited manner, and therefore meets the requirements of the limitation; it is noted that the casing is not positively recited in this claim), the frame comprising a plurality of leg members (leg members of the frame 2) that meet at corners [FIG. 1], each leg member having an outer edge surface and a leg member length (the outer edge surface is the outermost edge of the leg members; the lengths are also shown in Figure 1);
a screen mesh (1; column 1, lines 36-37 discloses that the screen 1 is a wire mesh) affixed to the frame; and
a plurality of bumpers (3), a first leg member and an opposite second leg member (opposing vertical leg members shown in Figure 1) of the plurality of leg members each including a bumper of the plurality of bumpers; wherein each bumper is adapted to deform from an uncompressed state to a compressed state between the frame and the casing when the frame is installed in a casing (column 1, lines 36-52; the bumpers 3 are configured to compress when installed in a window casing) and wherein each bumper comprises:
an inner surface that is coupled to the outer edge surface of a respective one of the plurality of leg members (as shown in Figure 1, the bumpers 3 have an inner surface of a “D”-shaped structure that is attached to the outer edge surface of the leg members); and
a deformable material (column 2, lines 4-11 discloses sponge rubber or soft rubber, which is deformable) disposed on the outer edge surface extending away from the frame [FIG. 1] and disposed to both sides of a longitudinal centerline of that bumper (the longitudinal centerline is defined as a centerline of the bumper extending through the opening 4) when that bumper is in the uncompressed state [FIG. 1], the deformable material adapted to compress to both sides of a longitudinal axis of that bumper under load to increase a width of a contact surface area that spans to both sides of the longitudinal centerline of that bumper and is distal from the inner surface of that bumper (compression of the bumper is disclosed in column 1, lines 36-52; increasing of the width of the contact surface inherently occurs with the bumper as a result of its shape and material);
wherein compressing the deformable material contributes to a friction force between the contact surface area and the casing (the compression of the deformable material inherently contributes to a friction force, as contact is established between the bumpers and the casing that generates a frictional force between the two components) and wherein the plurality of bumpers is adapted to hold the frame in place in the casing using friction between the plurality of bumpers and the casing (column 1, lines 36-52) and
wherein a third leg member (lower horizontal leg member of the frame 2) of the plurality of leg members extends between the first leg member and the second leg member [FIG. 1] and is adapted to abut against a lower horizontal side of the casing (the lower horizontal leg member of the frame is inherently capable of being installed so as to abut against a lower horizontal side of the casing; it is noted that the casing is not positively recited in the claim, so this limitation constitutes a functional recitation).
Mason does not disclose that the plurality of bumpers are disposed closer to the corners than to a middle of the leg members or that they have a length less than a length of the leg members. Mason also does not disclose that the frame is a flexible frame formed of a solid wire deformable under a deforming force and exhibiting a restoring force toward its original shape.
Nonetheless, Helig discloses a screen [FIG. 5] comprising a plurality of bumpers (8), each bumper disposed on a respective outer edge surface of a first leg member and an opposite second leg member (1b) [FIG. 6], wherein the plurality of bumpers are disposed closer to the corners than to a middle of a respective one of the at least two leg members, wherein each bumper has a length less than a length of each of the at least two leg members (as shown in Figures 5 and 6, the bumpers 8 are provided at each of the corners, and have a length that is less than that of the respective leg members).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bumpers of Mason to have a length shorter than the length of the leg member and to be positioned closer to the corners than the middle of each leg member, as taught by Helig, in order to reduce the amount of material required, so as to reduce manufacturing costs of the assembly while still providing a self-centering and self-securing screen configuration.
Furthermore, Altieri discloses a screen (2) comprising a flexible frame (6), the flexible frame formed of a solid wire (column 6, lines 30-33), wherein the flexible frame is deformable under a deforming force from an original shape to a deformed shape for installation and exhibits a restoring force toward its original shape (column 5, lines 17-24); wherein the restoring force is adapted to hold the flexible frame in place.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the screen frame of Mason to be formed as a deformable flexible frame, as taught by Altieri, in order to facilitate installation and allow for better fit of the screen within a slightly distorted or bowed frame.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 11, Mason discloses multiple bumpers [FIG. 1], and a fourth leg member (upper horizontal leg member of the frame 2) opposite the third leg member, the fourth leg member extending between the first leg member and the second leg member [FIG. 1], but does not explicitly disclose four or eight lengths of deformable material, of that each leg member includes a pair of bumpers.
Nonetheless, Helig discloses two bumpers (8) provided at each corner of first, second, third, and fourth leg members (leg members of the inner frame 3; the leg members are all shown in Figure 5, and disposition of the bumpers 8 at the corners is shown in Figure 6), thereby including at least eight bumpers and a pair of bumpers provided on each of the leg members.
As described with respect to claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bumpers of Mason to have the configuration taught by Helig, in order to reduce the cost of the assembly. Configuring the bumpers in the configuration taught by Helig would provide two bumpers at each corner, thereby providing two bumpers on each leg and a total of eight bumpers. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It has also been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (U.S. Patent No. 2,263,813) in view of Helig (U.S. Patent No. 2,597,484) and Altieri (U.S. Patent No. 9,234,388), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hahn (U.S. Patent No. 6,485,030).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Mason, as modified above, discloses that the deformable material may be made of rubber, but does not disclose that it is selected from the group consisting of natural rubber (Mason is silent as to the specific use of natural rubber), SBR, EPDM, Neoprene, Nitrile, Silicone, FKM, and TPE; or that the deformable material is configured to be secured to the leg members by melting, welding, adhesion or mechanical fastening.
Nonetheless, Hahn discloses a deformable material (12) selected from the group consisting of natural rubber, SBR, EPDM, Neoprene, Nitrile, Silicone (column 2, lines 16-18), FKM, and TPE, wherein the deformable material is configured to be secured by melting, welding, adhesion (via self-sticking adhesive 20) or mechanical fastening.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deformable material of Mason, as modified above, to be made from silicone and to be secured by adhesion, as taught by Hahn, in order to provide higher temperature resistance and seal properties, and reduce sticking in freezing temperatures, and to provide and easily attachable and secured connection between the deformable material and the leg members of the screen.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (U.S. Patent No. 2,263,813) in view of Helig (U.S. Patent No. 2,597,484), Altieri (U.S. Patent No. 9,234,388), and Minnich (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0112553).
Regarding claim 14, Mason discloses a window system (the window system including a casing and a screen is described in at least column 1, lines 36-56) comprising: a casing for a window (column 1, lines 46-50);
a screen [FIG. 1] installed in the casing, wherein the screen comprises:
a frame (2), the frame comprising a plurality of leg members (leg members of the frame 2) that meet at corners [FIG. 1], each leg member having an outer edge surface and a leg member length (the outer edge surface is the outermost edge of the leg members; the lengths are also shown in Figure 1);
a screen mesh (1; column 1, lines 36-37 discloses that the screen 1 is a wire mesh) affixed to the frame; and
a plurality of bumpers (3), a first leg member and an opposite second leg member (opposing vertical leg members shown in Figure 1) of the plurality of leg members each including a bumper of the plurality of bumpers; wherein each bumper is deformed from an uncompressed state to a compressed state between the frame and the casing when the frame is installed in the casing (column 1, lines 36-52; the bumpers 3 are configured to compress when installed in a window casing) and wherein each bumper comprises:
an inner surface that is coupled to the outer edge surface of a respective one of the plurality of leg members (as shown in Figure 1, the bumpers 3 have an inner surface of a “D”-shaped structure that is attached to the outer edge surface of the leg members); and
a deformable material (column 2, lines 4-11 discloses sponge rubber or soft rubber, which is deformable) disposed on the outer edge surface extending away from the frame [FIG. 1] and disposed to both sides of a longitudinal centerline of that bumper (the longitudinal centerline is defined as a centerline of the bumper extending through the opening 4) when that bumper is in the uncompressed state [FIG. 1], the deformable material adapted to compress to both sides of a longitudinal axis of that bumper under load to increase a width of a contact surface area that spans to both sides of the longitudinal centerline of that bumper and is distal from the inner surface of that bumper (compression of the bumper is disclosed in column 1, lines 36-52; increasing of the width of the contact surface inherently occurs with the bumper as a result of its shape and material); wherein compressing the deformable material contributes to a friction force between the contact surface area and the casing (the compression of the deformable material inherently contributes to a friction force, as contact is established between the bumpers and the casing that generates a frictional force between the two components); wherein friction between the screen and casing retains the screen in place in the casing (column 1, lines 36-52) and
wherein a third leg member (lower horizontal leg member of the frame 2) of the plurality of leg members extends between the first leg member and the second leg member [FIG. 1] and is adapted to abut against a lower horizontal side of the casing (the lower horizontal leg member of the frame is inherently capable of being installed so as to abut against a lower horizontal side of the casing, which reads on the limitation “adapted to abut”).
Mason does not disclose that the casing does not include a screen retaining channel; that the frame is a flexible frame formed of a solid wire; or that the plurality of bumpers are disposed closer to the corners than to a middle of the leg members or that they have a length less than a length of the leg members.
Nonetheless, Minnich discloses a window system [FIG. 1] comprising a casing (14) for a window, wherein the casing does not include a screen retaining channel (as shown in Figure 1, the casing does not include a channel; paragraph 0040 further discloses that the screen 12 is retained only through frictional engagement with the frame 14); and a screen (12) installed in the casing (paragraph 0018) wherein friction between the screen and casing retains the screen in place in the casing (paragraph 0040); wherein a third leg member (32.3) of the frame is adapted to abut against a lower horizontal side of the casing (lower frame member 22.2 of the casing is abutted by the lower/third leg member 32.3 as shown in Figure 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Mason to include a screen installable within a casing not including a screen retaining channel, as taught by Minnich, in order to allow for easier retrofit of the screen, and to provide a window casing that has a more aesthetic or unobstructed appearance when the screen is removed from the casing.
Furthermore, Helig discloses a screen [FIG. 5] comprising a plurality of bumpers (8), each bumper disposed on a respective outer edge surface of a first leg member and an opposite second leg member (1b) [FIG. 6], wherein the plurality of bumpers are disposed closer to the corners than to a middle of a respective one of the at least two leg members, wherein each bumper has a length less than a length of each of the at least two leg members (as shown in Figures 5 and 6, the bumpers 8 are provided at each of the corners, and have a length that is less than that of the respective leg members).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bumpers of Mason to have a length shorter than the length of the leg member and to be positioned closer to the corners than the middle of each leg member, as taught by Helig, in order to reduce the amount of material required, so as to reduce manufacturing costs of the assembly while still providing a self-centering and self-securing screen configuration.
Furthermore, Altieri discloses a screen (2) comprising a flexible frame (6), the flexible frame formed of a solid wire (column 6, lines 30-33), wherein the flexible frame is deformable under a deforming force from an original shape to a deformed shape for installation and exhibits a restoring force toward its original shape (column 5, lines 17-24); wherein the restoring force is adapted to hold the flexible frame in place.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the screen frame of Mason to be formed as a deformable flexible frame, as taught by Altieri, in order to facilitate installation and allow for better fit of the screen within a slightly distorted or bowed frame.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/12/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments to the claims and the newly applied prior art reference (Minnich).
Applicant argues that Mason, as modified by Helig, fails to disclose a screen held in place in a window casing without screen retaining channels, but this argument is not found persuasive. With respect to claim 1, the window casing is not positively recited, and the screen of Mason, as modified above, is inherently capable of being installed in a casing without channels due to the inherent properties of the rubber bumpers. These bumpers are explicitly deformable and have the inherent property of providing a frictional interaction with a wood material (as is disclosed for the frame of the casing in Mason), which therefore results in an assembly capable of being used in the intended manner. With respect to claim 14, Minnich is relied upon to teach a screen and casing system in which the casing does not include a screen retaining channel and the screen is explicitly held within the casing with a frictional engagement.
Applicant did not set forth any arguments specifically directed to the combination of Mason, Helig, and Altieri as it is applied in the above rejection or as it was applied in the Office action dated 10/10/25.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ABE L MASSAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/ABE MASSAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634