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 Amendment
An amendment responsive to the non-final Office Action dated March 10, 2025 was submitted on August 8, 2025. Claim 1 was amended. Claim 2 was canceled. Claims 3-15 were added. Claims 1 and 3-15 are currently pending.
Applicant's arguments regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1 (¶¶ 5-7 of the Office Action) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the rejection of this claim has been maintained as detailed below. The limitations added to claim 1 and new claims 3-15 have also been addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mundy (U.S. Patent No. 3,757,473, cited in previous Office Action) in view of Hanhart (German Patent Publication No. DE 10 2014-112293 A1, machine language translation provided in previous Office Action and cited below).
Regarding claim 1, Mundy discloses a door frame assembly (Abstract, FIG. 2 of Mundy, door and jamb assembly) including a pair of door frame upright members and a door frame header member (FIG. 1, 1:54-56 of Mundy, assembly includes left and right jamb segments #15 #16 and header #17), each comprising a jamb portion bounded by integral architrave portions (FIG. 2 of Mundy, jamb segments and header include casing portions#40 #52) and formed from a sheet of polymer material (FIG. 5, 2:54-58 of Mundy; jamb member #64 formed from flat wood board #100 covered with a vinyl layer #102; unfinished vinyl covered board is a sheet comprising a polymer or a “sheet of polymer material”), said jamb portion and architrave portions being formed about respective elongate grooves formed in said sheet of polymer material, each said groove forming a reduced thickness portion of said sheet of polymer material that forms an outer corner between said jamb portion and respective integral architrave portion (2:59-68, FIG. 2 of Mundy, series of parallel grooves cut along length of board to form reduced thickness sections allowing for folding to form jamb and casing).
Mundy does not disclose that the grooves are re-entrant or that each said groove provides an elongate chamber adjacent said reduced thickness portion. Hanhart, however, discloses a method for forming a rounded corner from a flat support plate the method comprising forming reentrant, elongate grooves having opposed edges that overlap the reduced thickness portion formed by the groove (FIG. 3 of Hanhart) and folding the flat plate along the grooves to form the corner (FIG. 4 of Hanhart). As shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 of Hanhart, the groove provides an elongate chamber adjacent said reduced thickness portion (FIG. 3 of Hanhart). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form re-entrant grooves having an overhang in the method of Mundy. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to form rounded corners on the jamb assembly as taught by Hanhart (FIGS. 3-4 of Hanhart).
Regarding claim 3, Hanhart discloses that each said groove has edges that overhang said reduced thickness portion (FIG. 4 of Hanhart).
Regarding claim 5, Mundy does not specifically disclose that each jamb portion is unitary Moreover, Mundy discloses that the jamb assembly is a split assembly comprising two pieces (FIG. 2 of Mundy). As set forth in the MPEP, however, the use of a one-piece construction instead of several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (MPEP 2144.04 V).
Regarding claim 7, Hanhart discloses that the reduced thickness portion is bendable (FIG. 5 of Hanhart).
Regarding claim 8, Hanhart discloses that the reduced thickness portion is bendable into said elongate chamber (FIGS. 4-5 of Hanhart).
Regarding claim 9, Hanhart discloses a door frame member comprising a jamb portion bounded by integral architrave portions (Abstract, FIG. 2 of Mundy, door and jamb assembly) and formed from a sheet of polymer material (FIG. 5, 2:54-58 of Mundy; jamb member #64 formed from flat wood board #100 covered with a vinyl layer #102; unfinished vinyl covered board is a sheet comprising a polymer or a “sheet of polymer material”), said jamb portion and architrave portions being formed about respective elongate grooves formed in said sheet of polymer material, each said groove forming a reduced thickness portion of said sheet of polymer material that forms an outer corner between said jamb portion and respective integral architrave portion (2:59-68, FIG. 2 of Mundy, series of parallel grooves cut along length of board to form reduced thickness sections allowing for folding to form jamb and casing).
Mundy does not disclose that the grooves are re-entrant or that each said groove provides an elongate chamber adjacent said reduced thickness portion. Hanhart, however, discloses a method for forming a rounded corner from a flat support plate the method comprising forming reentrant, elongate grooves having opposed edges that overlap the reduced thickness portion formed by the groove (FIG. 3 of Hanhart) and folding the flat plate along the grooves to form the corner (FIG. 4 of Hanhart). As shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 of Hanhart, the groove provides an elongate chamber adjacent said reduced thickness portion (FIG. 3 of Hanhart). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form re-entrant grooves having an overhang in the method of Mundy. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to form rounded corners on the jamb assembly as taught by Hanhart (FIGS. 3-4 of Hanhart).
Regarding claim 10, Hanhart discloses that each said groove has edges that overhang said reduced thickness portion (FIG. 4 of Hanhart).
Regarding claim 12, Mundy does not specifically disclose that each jamb portion is unitary. Moreover, Mundy discloses that the jamb assembly is a split assembly comprising two pieces (FIG. 2 of Mundy). As set forth in the MPEP, however, the use of a one-piece construction instead of several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (MPEP 2144.04 V).
Regarding claim 14, Hanhart discloses that the reduced thickness portion is bendable (FIG. 5 of Hanhart).
Regarding claim 15, Hanhart discloses that the reduced thickness portion is bendable into said elongate chamber (FIGS. 4-5 of Hanhart).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mundy in view of Hanhart as applied to claims 1 and 9 above and further in view of Wilkinson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0056014 A1, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Mundy does not specifically disclose that each of said grooves provide an elongate gap between the opposed edges that is closed by filler rod which is welded between said opposed edges across said gap. Rather, Mundy discloses that glue is inserted in each of the grooves (2:64-65 of Mundy). Wilkinson, however, discloses applying a filler rod #62 to the gap in a joint formed by folding a sheet along a groove to form a corner (FIGS. 6a-6c of Wilkinson). According to Wilkinson, the use of the filler rod provides greater strength and stability to the welded surface (i.e., to the joint) ([0035] of Wilkinson). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a filler rod to close the gap formed after folding the blank in the modified method. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provides greater strength and stability to the joint as taught by Wilkinson ([0035] of Wilkinson).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mundy in view of Hanhart as applied to claims 1 and 9 above and further in view of De Zen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0045250 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Hanhart does not specifically disclose that the sheet of polymer material is an HDPE polymer sheet. De Zen, however, discloses a rigid extrusion building product comprising high density polyethylene which may be a door frame jamb (Abstract of De Zen). According to De Zen, the building products are made from recyclable materials and have improved insulating a moisture resistance properties ([0002] of De Zen). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the modified door jamb assembly from the HDPE material of Se Zen. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the use of recyclable materials in the manufacture of the assembly and to provide a jamb assembly having improved insulating and moisture resistance properties as taught by De Zen ([0002] of De Zen).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered to the extent that they apply to the new grounds of rejection but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that Hanhart relates to formation of rounded corners for furniture which is not relevant to door frames (pg. 6, 2nd full ¶ of the amendment). In response to applicant's argument that Hanhart 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, Hanhart is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned (i.e., forming integral corners in a building material). In addition, building construction and furniture manufacture are both in the filed of carpentry and are therefore in the same field of endeavor.
The applicant also asserts that Mundy uses a vinyl covering to form the corner and one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to a means of corner formation that do not include a vinyl covering (pg. 6, 2nd full ¶ of the amendment). Hanhart, however, discloses using a material having a flexible covering layer (FIG. 3 of Hanhart, top layer #2).
The applicant also asserts that Hanhart does not disclose door frame members formed from a sheet of polymer material (pg. 6, 3rd full ¶ of the amendment). The Office Action, however, is relying upon Mundy to address this limitation. As set forth in the MPEP, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The applicant also asserts that Hanhart does not disclose each groove providing an elongate chamber adjacent the reduced thickness portion since Hanhart discloses using an expanding adhesive which fills the cavities remaining after folding (pg. 6, 3rd full ¶ of the amendment). The claims, however, are directed to a door frame assembly. As shown in FIGS. 3 and 4 of Hanhart, the groove forms an elongate chamber adjacent the reduced thickness portion in the assembly before and after installation.
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 CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746