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 Objections
Claim 59 is objected to because of the following informalities: at the end of the claim, please delete the comma and replace it with a period. 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 53-66 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.
Claim 53 recites the limitation "the windowpane" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 53, 55-57, 59-61, 67-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wexler (US2018/0347258).
For claim 53, Wexler discloses a supplemental window apparatus (fig. 21P) comprising: a substantially non porous sheet (856(1)); a stiffener (932) attached to an edge portion (906) of the sheet, the stiffener (932) having a dimension perpendicular to the windowpane that is about the same or less than an outward surface dimension of the edge portion that is perpendicular to the windowpane when the supplemental window apparatus is mounted to the window; an edge seal (fig. 21P, 858(1)) configured to contact at least one of a windowpane and a first window element when the supplemental window apparatus is mounted to the window, wherein the substantially non porous sheet has a sheet area substantially similar to a windowpane area defined by the interior surfaces of the first window element.
For claim 55, Wexler discloses that the seal is creased/folded (fig. 21P, 858(1)).
For claim 56, Wexler discloses a corner closure (fig. 21P, 852).
For claim 57, Wexler discloses that the corner closure comprises a spacer (852 creates a space between 842 and the pane 846).
For claim 59, Wexler discloses a constraint (fig. 21P, 842) configured to be attached to a windowpane constraint at a corner area of a first window element of an existing window, the corner area defined by interior surfaces of the first window element (848) holding the windowpane (846).
For claim 60, Wexler discloses that the stiffener is located between the sheet and the windowpane (fig. 21P, 932 is between sheet 856(1) and windowpane 846).
For claim 61, Wexler discloses that the stiffener (fig. 21P, 932) is located outward from the sheet (856(1)) and substantially perpendicular to the windowpane (846).
For claim 67, Wexler discloses a supplemental window apparatus (fig. 13A-C) comprising: a substantially non porous sheet (419) comprising a cutout (area occupied by 415) in a region of the sheet configured to be located near an encroaching window hardware component (415) of a window when the supplemental window is mounted on the window; a cutout brace (420) at a sheet edge; the cutout brace attached to the sheet edge in the region of the sheet comprising the cutout; a constraint (416) configured to be attached to a windowpane constraint at a corner area of a first window element (412) of an existing window, the corner area defined by interior surfaces of the first window element holding the windowpane (414), wherein the substantially non porous sheet has a sheet area substantially similar to a windowpane area defined by the interior surfaces of the first window element.
For claim 68, Wexler discloses an edge seal (421).
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) 54, 58, 64-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wexler (US2018/0347258).
For claim 54, Wexler appears to disclose that the edge seal has a cross-sectional dimension smaller than the sheet thickness (fig. 21F, 860(2), 856(1)), however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to make the cross-sectional dimension of the edge seal smaller than the sheet thickness to save material and make the edge seal creasable.
For claim 58, Wexler discloses the obviousness of adding a flap (fig. 21G, 870) to an edge portion of the sheet for adding sheet rigidity and adding additional surfaces for end user to grip the frameless window apparatus (see Wexler [0174]).
For claim 64, Wexler discloses the obviousness of adding a cutout brace (fig. 5D, 122) at an edge of the sheet to strengthen the corner of the supplemental window apparatus [0091].
For claim 65-66, Wexler discloses the obviousness of creating a flap from the sheet and cutting a notch out of the flap to aid with bending of the sheet during mounting or dismounting of the supplemental window apparatus [0175].
Claim(s) 62-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wexler (US2018/0347258) in view of Brown et al. (US2015/0060648).
For claims 62-63, Wexler does not disclose an active device.
Brown et al. discloses a supplemental window apparatus (fig. 2B) comprising an active device, wherein the active device is an electrochromic device [0039].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to add an electrochromic device to the supplemental window apparatus of Wexler as made obvious by Brown et al. to increase the privacy properties of the window apparatus and add UV protection and aesthetic appeal to the window apparatus.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA K IHEZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5347. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached on 571-272-6754. 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.
/JOSHUA K IHEZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights