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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 12-16, 23, 26 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiFazio (4570406) in view of Soder et al (6279289) and Albee Jr (3009516).
DiFazio shows a multiple component frame and screen system, comprising: lineal components(14) with a hollow body, each lineal component capable of friction locking through the hollow body; the lineal components have a ridge (figure 3, at 16) on an interior of the hollow body to assist in friction locking, corner components(figure 4), each corner component capable of friction locking with the lineal components(figure 2); at least one protrusion (30) on one side of the corner components and that fits within the ridge of the hollow body (figure 2), and a screen(12) that interlocks in a screen lock channel(15) of the lineal components, the corner components, the ridge extends below(figure 3; upper is where 15 is, while lower is where 14 is as the claim has not clearly claimed the orientation) the screen lock channel(15).
DiFazio does not show the corner components have locking teeth to assist in friction locking, splice components, each splice component capable of friction locking with the lineal components, wherein the splice components have locking teeth to assist in friction locking, the locking teeth of the splice components comprising at least one protrusion on one side of the splice components and that fits within the ridge of the hollow body, cross-bar components, each cross bar component capable of friction locking with the lineal components by being inserted within the interior of the hollow body and engaging locking teeth of the cross bar components with the ridge on the interior of the hollow body, wherein the locking teeth of the cross bar components comprising at least one protrusion on one side of the cross bar components and that fits within the ridge of the hollow body, the locking teeth of the splice components engage the ridge below the screen lock channel.
Soder et al figures 13-17, discloses the use of splice components(252), each splice component capable of friction locking with the lineal components; cross-bar components(218), each cross bar component capable of friction locking with the lineal components, the tubular members can be alternatively connected by fasteners such as bolt or sheet metal screws, or by frictional fit with indentation/protrusion (col 11 lines 25-44).
Albee Jr (figures 4-5) shows the use of locking teeth (31, 33, 33, 34) comprising at least one protrusion (34) on one side of the corner components to friction fit within the ridge of a hollow body of the lineals (10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify DiFazio’s structure with a reasonable expectation of success to show the use of splice components(252), each splice component capable of friction locking with the lineal components; cross-bar components(218), each cross bar component capable of friction locking with the lineal components, the tubular members can be alternatively connected by fasteners such as bolt or sheet metal screws, or by frictional fit with indentation/protrusion (col 11 lines 25-44) as taught by Soder, and the use of locking teeth (31, 33, 33, 34) comprising at least one protrusion (34) on one side of the connecting components to friction fit within the ridge of a hollow body of the lineals (10) as taught by Albee Jr. in order to easily enlarge/reduce the size of the screen frame as needed while supporting the frame at the needed cross sections, and quickly connect joining sections together with frictional fit.
DiFazio as modified shows the corner components have locking teeth to assist in friction locking, splice components, each splice component capable of friction locking with the lineal components, wherein the splice components have locking teeth to assist in friction locking, the locking teeth of the splice components comprising at least one protrusion on one side of the splice components and that fits within the ridge of the hollow body, cross-bar components, each cross bar component capable of friction locking with the lineal components by being inserted within the interior of the hollow body and engaging locking teeth of the cross bar components with the ridge on the interior of the hollow body, wherein the locking teeth of the cross bar components comprising at least one protrusion on one side of the cross bar components and that fits within the ridge of the hollow body, the locking teeth of the splice components engage the ridge below the screen lock channel.
Per claim 2, DiFazio further shows a screen locking insert(19) that interlocks in the screen lock channel by compressing the screen into the screen lock channel.
Per claims 3-6, DiFazio as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for
the lineal components are comprised of a polymeric material, wherein the corner components, the splice components, and the cross-bar components are comprised of a polymeric material, the lineal components are comprised of a metal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify DiFazio’s modified structure with a reasonable expectation of success to show the lineal components are comprised of a polymeric material, wherein the corner components, the splice components, and the cross-bar components are comprised of a polymeric material 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416; one thus having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify DiFazio’s modified structures to show the needed material with the needed properties for forming the frame screen.
Per claim 8, DiFazio as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for the screen is comprised of fiberglass or metal or vinyl.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify DiFazio’s modified structure with a reasonable expectation of success to show the screen is comprised of fiberglass or metal or vinyl 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416; one thus having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify DiFazio’s modified structures to show the needed material with the needed properties for forming the frame screen.
Per claim 9, DiFazio as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for the lineal components, the corner components, the splice components, and the cross bar components are also held together with an adhesive at the friction locking locations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify DiFazio’s modified structure with a reasonable expectation of success to show the lineal components, the corner components, the splice components, and the cross bar components are also held together with an adhesive at the friction locking locations since having added adhesives at joined location would enhance the connection strength at the joints.
Per claim 10, DiFazio as modified further shows the cross-bar components interlock with three lineal components.
Per claims 12-16, 20, 23, DiFazio as modified shows all the claimed structural limitations. The claimed method steps would have been the obvious method steps of assembling DiFazio’s modified structures.
Per claim 26, DiFazio as modified further shows the screen locking insert in the screen lock channel compresses the ridge to further engage the locking teeth of the splice components (the insert pushing on the ridge as shown in DiFazio figure 2 and thus is able to function as claimed).
Claim(s) 22 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiFazio (4570406) in view of Soder et al (6279289) and Albee Jr (3009516) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Guillemet (5431211).
DiFazio as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for at least one of the corner components, the splice components, or the cross bar components comprises a predefined fastener location at which the multiple component frame and screen system is fastened to a wall or other structural framing, wherein the predefined fastener location defines an opening that receives a fastener and avoids penetrating the hollow body of any of the lineal components.
Guillemet figures 2-3, shows at least one of the corner components(13), the splice components, or the cross bar components comprises a predefined fastener location(where 38 exits/located) at which the multiple component frame and screen system is fastened to a wall or other structural framing(43, figure 3), wherein the predefined fastener location defines an opening that receives a fastener(40) and avoids penetrating the hollow body of any of the lineal components.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify DiFazio’s modified structure with a reasonable expectation of success to show at least one of the corner components(13), the splice components, or the cross bar components comprises a predefined fastener location(where 38 exits/located) at which the multiple component frame and screen system is fastened to a wall or other structural framing(43, figure 3), wherein the predefined fastener location defines an opening that receives a fastener(40) and avoids penetrating the hollow body of any of the lineal components as taught by Guillemet in order to enable connecting/fastening of the system with a supporting wall/structure at assembly onto a building as needed.
Per claim 24, DiFazio as modified further shows at the predefined fastener location, the screen together with the at least one of the corner components, the splice components, or the cross bar components are fastened to the wall or the other structural framing.
Claim(s) 25 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiFazio (4570406) in view of Soder et al (6279289) and Albee Jr (3009516) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zieg (4723388).
DiFazio as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for the splice components comprise a thicker material than the hollow body of the lineal components or are solid.
Zieg figures 6-7, shows connecting components (23b) comprise a thicker material than the hollow body of the lineal components or are solid.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify DiFazio’s modified structure with a reasonable expectation of success to show thicker material than the hollow body of the lineal components or are solid as taught by Zieg in order to provide strong connectors that can withstand the stresses imposed on the connectors by the connecting lineals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 12-16, 20, 22-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to the added limitations, the different combination of the references as set forth above shows the claimed limitations, including “the lineals….a ridge…” , and the “ one protrusion…” .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art shows different window frame designs.
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 PHI D Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-6864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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 at 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.
/PHI D A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633