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
Although the claims utilize a phrase not exactly found in the specification, “wherein the spline is located distally from the mesh relative to the inner opening,” it is clear from the drawings that the limitation is supported, as stated by the applicant in the response filed January 19, 2026.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 17, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everhard (US 2,126,544) in further view of Allen (US 2022/0268098).
Regarding claim 1, Everhard discloses a screen assembly comprising:
a frame (11), the frame defining a spline channel (16), the frame defining an inner opening (space within frame over which 28 covers; Fig 1);
a mesh (28), the mesh comprising a peripheral edge (29) (Figs 3-7), wherein the peripheral edge is disposed within the spline channel (Figs 3-7);
a spline (33), wherein the spline is fitted within the spline channel and holds the peripheral edge in place (Figs 3-7); and
wherein the spline (33) is located distally from the mesh relative to the inner opening (Figs 3-7).
Everhard fails to teach a polymeric barrier layer, wherein the polymeric barrier layer separates at least one of the mesh and the frame, the mesh and the spline, or the frame and the spline from electrical contact with one another. However, Allen teaches that it is known to provide a screen assembly with a polymeric barrier layer (230) that separates at least one of the mesh and the frame (Fig 2C), the mesh and the spline, or the frame and the spline from electrical contact with one another. Allen teaches that the polymeric barrier layer is an electrically isolating material and therefore separates electrical contact (paragraph [0111]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Everhard and provide the screen assembly with a polymeric barrier layer in the manner taught by Allen such that it is between the mesh and frame of Everhard in order to separate the elements from electrical contact (paragraph [0111] of Allen) and reduce corrosion (paragraph [0085] of Allen).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Everhard as modified with Allen above teaches the polymeric barrier layer is at least partially disposed within the spline channel and wherein the polymeric barrier layer separates the frame from the mesh.
Regarding claim 5, Everhard as modified with Allen above, Allen teaches wherein the polymeric barrier layer is a coextrusion of polyvinylchloride to cap a portion of the frame thereby separating the frame from the mesh (Figs 2A-2C; Allen discloses polyvinylchloride polymeric layer that caps a portion of the frame and it is understood that coextrusion is a product-by-process limitation the product claims are limited to the structure of the claim not the process).
Regarding claim 6, Everhard fails to disclose that the spline comprises a polymer. Everhard does not specifically disclose the material that makes up the spline. Everhard does disclose that the spline (33) is bendable and wedged into the spline channel. Allen teaches that it is known for a spline (220) that is wedged into a channel to comprise a polymer (paragraph [0110]) in order to provide resiliency. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to form the spline of Everhard from a polymer since it is a known material choice for a spline that is wedged into a channel, as taught by Allen.
Regarding claim 17, Everhard discloses that the frame comprises a metal material but does not specifically disclose the frame comprising aluminum. However, Allen teaches that it is known for a screen assembly having a frame to have the frame comprise aluminum. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Everhard such that the frame comprises aluminum since it is a known material choice for forming frames of a screen assembly, as taught by Allen.
Regarding claim 19, Everhard as modified with Allen above in claim 1, Allen teaches the polymeric barrier layer comprising a polymeric insert, wherein the polymeric insert is at least partially disposed within the spline channel (Fig 2A).
Regarding claim 21, Everhard as modified with Allen above in claim 1, Allen teaches wherein the polymeric barrier layer is a coextrusion of polyvinyl chloride and caps a portion of the frame. Allen discloses polyvinylchloride polymeric barrier layer that caps a portion of the frame thereby separating the frame from the mesh (Figs 2A-2C) and it is understood that coextrusion is a product-by-process limitation and the product claims are limited to the structure claim not the process.
Regarding claim 22, Everhard as modified with Allen above in claim 1, Allen teaches wherein the polymeric barrier layer is at least partially disposed within the spline channel and at least partially disposed outside of the spline channel (Fig 2A).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everhard and Allen, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Todd (US 2,400,271).
Regarding claim 4, Everhard discloses that the frame comprises a metal material but does not specifically disclose the frame comprising aluminum. However, Allen teaches that it is known for a screen assembly having a frame to have the frame comprise aluminum. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Everhard such that the frame comprises aluminum since it is a known material choice for forming frames of a screen assembly, as taught by Allen. Although Allen discloses the frame comprises aluminum (paragraph [0108]) Allen fails to teach a primer with strontium chromate. However, Todd teaches that the use of a primer with strontium chromate on metal surfaces for the purpose of preventing corrosion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to improve Allen and provide a primer of strontium chromate on the aluminum in order to prevent corrosion, as taught by Todd. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Claims 8-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everhard and Allen, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Guillemet (US 5,431,211).
Regarding claim 8, Everhard fails to disclose a latch assembly. However, screen assemblies are known to have latch assemblies in order to secure the screen assembly, as taught by Guillemet. Guillemet teaches a screen assembly (Fig 2) having a frame (11, 12) (Fig 1) that is further provided with a latch (38) for retaining the screen assembly within an opening (Fig 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Everhard and provide the screen assembly with a latch assembly, as taught by Guillemet, in order to improve retention of the screen assembly within an opening. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 13, as best understood, Everhard and Allen as modified with the teachings of Guillemet, Guillemet teaches the latch assembly is of steel or any other appropriate materials (col 3, lines 32-37) and further teaches the latch assembly is further provided with a wing blade portion (14 or 15) separating a wing blade of the latch assembly from the frame (11 or 12). It is not specifically disclosed the steel material is a stainless steel coated with an electrically inert material such as a polymer material thereby separating the wing blade from the frame. However, Guillemet specifically teaches that “any other appropriate materials” may be used and are not limited to aluminum, steel, or vinyl. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Everhard and Allen in view of Guillemet such that the latch assembly is a stainless steel coated with an electrically inert material thereby separating the wing blade from the frame. It is well within the technical grasp of one in the art to select a known material based on its suitability and obvious design choice. As modified, wherein the latch assembly is stainless steel and encapsulated in a polymer such a vinyl, as taught by Guillemet. Further, as modified, the encapsulated polymer or material separating the wing blade from the frame is provided as a second polymeric barrier layer, wherein the second polymeric barrier layer separates the latch assembly from the frame (14 or 15 of Guillemet act as layers separating the latch assembly from the frame).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everhard and Allen, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Manier (US 2011/0225887).
Regarding claim 14, although Everhard as modified with Allen teaches that the frame is aluminum it is not specifically disclosed to be powder coated aluminum. However, Manier teaches that it is known for aluminum frames to be powder-coated to prevent rust and corrosion (paragraph [0019]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the frame and provide the frame with powder coated aluminum prevent corrosion, as taught by Manier. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everhard and Allen, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Grube (US 10,669773).
Regarding claim 15, Everhard as modified with Allen above, Allen discloses the spline (220) comprises a polymer (paragraph [0110]) and it would be obvious to be extruded as the limitation is understood to be a product-by-process limitation and the claim is limited to the structure claimed. Everhard and Allen does not specifically disclose that the spline also comprises aluminum. Grube teaches that it is known for splines (112) to be formed of polymers (thermoplastics or plastics) and aluminum combinations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Allen with the teachings of Grube and provide the spline as a combination of extruded polymer and aluminum since such combinations are known.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everhard and Allen, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Randall (US 11,060,350).
Regarding claim 16 and 18, Everhard as modified with Allen, Allen discloses that the polymeric barrier layer separates the frame from the mesh but not from the spline nor does Allen disclose that the polymeric barrier layer comprises a vinyl film wrap, wherein the vinyl film wrap is at least partially disposed within the spline channel nor However, Randall teaches that it is known for a polymeric barrier layer to be provided as a coating thereby forming a vinyl film wrap to prevent corrosion (col 12, lines 19-21). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique taught by Randall in areas where corrosion is to be prevented. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a polymeric barrier layer that separates the frame from the spline and that the polymeric barrier layer comprises a vinyl film wrap, wherein the vinyl film wrap is at least partially disposed within the spline channel since such modification involves the use of a known technique of providing polymer layers to prevent corrosion. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everhard in view of Allen, Todd, and Guillemet.
Regarding claim 25, Everhard discloses a screen assembly comprising:
a frame (11), the frame defining a spline channel (16), the frame defining an inner opening (space within frame over which 28 covers; Fig 1);
a mesh (28), the mesh comprising a peripheral edge (29) (Figs 3-7), wherein the peripheral edge is disposed within the spline channel (Figs 3-7);
a spline (33), wherein the spline is fitted within the spline channel and holds the peripheral edge in place (Figs 3-7); and
wherein the spline (33) is located distally from the mesh relative to the inner opening (Figs 3-7).
Everhard fails to teach a polymeric barrier layer, wherein the polymeric barrier layer separates at least one of the mesh and the frame, the mesh and the spline, or the frame and the spline from electrical contact with one another. However, Allen teaches that it is known to provide a screen assembly with a polymeric barrier layer (230) that separates at least one of the mesh and the frame (Fig 2C), the mesh and the spline, or the frame and the spline from electrical contact with one another. Allen teaches that the polymeric barrier layer is an electrically isolating material and therefore separates electrical contact (paragraph [0111]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Everhard and provide the screen assembly with a polymeric barrier layer in the manner taught by Allen such that it is between the mesh and frame of Everhard in order to separate the elements from electrical contact (paragraph [0111] of Allen) and reduce corrosion (paragraph [0085] of Allen).
Everhard discloses that the frame comprises a metal material but does not specifically disclose the frame comprising aluminum. However, Allen teaches that it is known for a screen assembly having a frame to have the frame comprise aluminum. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Everhard such that the frame comprises aluminum since it is a known material choice for forming frames of a screen assembly, as taught by Allen.
Allen discloses the frame comprises aluminum (paragraph [0108]) but fails to teach a primer with strontium chromate. However, Todd teaches that the use of a primer with strontium chromate on metal surfaces for the purpose of preventing corrosion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to improve Allen and provide a primer of strontium chromate on the aluminum in order to prevent corrosion, as taught by Todd. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Everhard fails to disclose a latch assembly. However, screen assemblies are known to have latch assemblies in order to secure the screen assembly, as taught by Guillemet. Guillemet teaches a screen assembly (Fig 2) having a frame (11, 12) (Fig 1) that is further provided with a latch (38) for retaining the screen assembly within an opening (Fig 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the assembly and provide the screen assembly with a latch assembly, as taught by Guillemet, in order to improve retention of the screen assembly within an opening. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Further, it is well within the technical grasp of one in the art to select a known material based on its suitability and obvious design choice. As modified, wherein the latch assembly is stainless steel and encapsulated in a polymer such a vinyl, as taught by Guillemet.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everhard and Allen.
Regarding claim 53, Everhard discloses a screen assembly comprising:
a frame (11), the frame defining a spline channel (16);
a mesh (28), the mesh comprising a peripheral edge (29) (Figs 3-7), wherein the peripheral edge is disposed within the spline channel (Figs 3-7);
a spline (33), wherein the spline is fitted within the spline channel and holds the peripheral edge in place (Figs 3-7); and
Everhard fails to teach a polymeric barrier layer, wherein the polymeric barrier layer is disposed on the frame within the spline channel, wherein the polymeric layer separates the frame and the spline from electrical contact with one another. However, Allen teaches that it is known to provide a screen assembly with a polymeric barrier layer (230) that separates elements from electrical contact with one another(paragraph [0111]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Everhard and provide the screen assembly with a polymeric barrier layer in the manner taught by Allen in order to separate the elements from electrical contact (paragraph [0111] of Allen) and reduce corrosion (paragraph [0085] of Allen). It would have been obvious to provide the polymeric barrier layer between the frame and the spline in order to separate the frame and the spline from contact and is within the general skill of a worker in the art as such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new grounds of rejection rely on the teachings of Everhard for addressing the newly added subject matter.
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 Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate Friday.
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.
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634