DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending.
Claim 19 is cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/21/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter type rejection.
Re claim 9, claim 9 recites, “the first portion of the wedging leg having an increased stability or strength against deformation as compared to a second portion of the wedging leg” in the last clause. However, after a review of the original disclosure (and of the disclosure of the applications to which the pending application claims priority, if such priority is claimed), the Examiner can find no support for this limitation. The language requires that the first portion of the wedging leg has an increased stability or strength as compared to a second portion. The Specification as originally filed only makes mention that the T-support profile as a whole has sufficiently high forces transmitted so a sufficiently high stability is provided, but makes no mention of specifics, nor does it mention the first portion of the wedging leg has an increased stability or strength as compared to a second portion. Thus, there appears to be no support as originally filed for the limitation. In the event that the Applicant is of the opinion that this language is supported as originally filed, the Examiner requests Applicant to please cite to where the language is supported as originally filed.
Re claim 20, claim 20 recites, “another adhesive disposed on the wedging leg.” However, after a review of the original disclosure (and of the disclosure of the applications to which the pending application claims priority, if such priority is claimed), the Examiner can find no support for this limitation. The Specification as originally filed only discloses an adhesive on feature 3. Neither the Specification nor the figures disclose an adhesive on wedging leg 5. Thus, there appears to be no support as originally filed for the limitation. In the event that the Applicant is of the opinion that this language is supported as originally filed, the Examiner requests Applicant to please cite to where the language is supported as originally filed.
Claims 10-18 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 9-18 and 20 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.
Re claim 9, claim 9 recites, “the first portion of the wedging leg having an increased stability or strength against deformation as compared to a second portion of the wedging leg” in the last clause. However, after a review of the original disclosure (and of the disclosure of the applications to which the pending application claims priority, if such priority is claimed), the Examiner can find no support for this limitation. The language requires that the first portion of the wedging leg has an increased stability or strength as compared to a second portion. The Specification as originally filed only makes mention that the T-support profile as a whole has sufficiently high forces transmitted so a sufficiently high stability is provided, but makes no mention of specifics, nor does it mention the first portion of the wedging leg has an increased stability or strength as compared to a second portion. Thus, it is unclear how the first portion has increased stability or strength against deformation as compared to a second portion. For the purposes of this examination, this language will be interpreted as a first portion having increased stability or strength compared to a second portion.
Re claim 20, claim 20 recites, “another adhesive disposed on the wedging leg.” However, after a review of the original disclosure (and of the disclosure of the applications to which the pending application claims priority, if such priority is claimed), the Examiner can find no support for this limitation. The Specification as originally filed only discloses an adhesive on feature 3. Neither the Specification nor the figures disclose an adhesive on wedging leg 5. Thus, it is unclear how another adhesive is disposed on the wedging leg. For the purposes of this examination, this language will be interpreted as another adhesive is disposed on the wedging leg.
Claims 10-18 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected 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) 1, 3, 5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Crow (GB2279101).
Re claim 1, Crow discloses a T-support profile (10) for a glazing (Fig. 1, 38) mountable on an extrusion profile (14) of a door and/or window frame (Fig. 1, 14), the extrusion profile (14) having a groove (34) oriented towards a weather side (Fig. 7a) of the door and/or window frame (14), the T-support profile (10) comprising:
an abutment leg (24, 12) adapted to: face the glazing (38), and in an assembled state (Fig. 1) of the T-support profile (10) on the extrusion profile (14), extend parallel to (Fig. 1) a planar extension (of 38) of the glazing (38);
an adhesive (16) disposed on a surface (of 12) of the abutment leg (24, 12), the surface (of 12) being adapted to face (Fig. 1) the glazing (38) such that the adhesive (16) forms a force fit and sealing engagement (Fig. 1) of the T-support profile (10) with the glazing (38) and the extrusion profile (14);
a wedging leg (26) extending transversely to (Fig. 2) the abutment leg (24, 12) and transversely to (Fig. 1) the planar extension (of 38) of the glazing (38), the wedging leg (26) being adapted to engage in (Fig. 1) the groove (34) of the extrusion profile (14).
It should further be noted that the language “extrusion” in “extrusion profile” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 3, Crow discloses the T-support profile according to claim 1, wherein the abutment leg (12, 24) includes at least one abutment projection (see examiner comments) projecting from a planar surface (Fig. 2) of the abutment leg (12, 24), the at least one abutment projection (see examiner comments) being adapted to abut against (Fig. 1) the extrusion profile (14).
Re claim 5, Crow discloses the T-support profile according to claim 1, wherein the wedging leg (26) comprises a surface structuring (fingers of 26) adapted to produce a form-fitting connection and/or a force-fitting connection (Fig. 1) with the extrusion profile (50) when wedging with (Fig. 1) the extrusion profile (14).
Re claim 8, Crow discloses the T-support profile according to claim 1, wherein the wedging leg (26) comprises a latch (fingers on 26) arranged on a section adjacent to the abutment leg (as this is an and/or clause) and/or adapted to be urged away from (Fig. 1) a groove flank (edge of 34) delimiting the groove (34) in response to a load being applied (any load) to the T-support profile (10) against the wedging leg (26) extension direction (Fig. 1).
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) 7, 9-12, 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crow (GB2279101) in view of Fetting et al (“Fetting”) (US 2017/0074029).
Re claim 7, Crow discloses the T-support profile according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the T- support profile is made of metal or fiber-reinforced plastic.
However, Fetting discloses wherein the T- support profile (Crow: 10) is made of metal ([0054]) or fiber-reinforced plastic.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the T-support profile of Crow wherein the T- support profile is made of metal or fiber-reinforced plastic as disclosed by Fetting in order to add heat resistance ([0054]).
Re claim 9, Crow discloses an extrusion profile (14) for a door and/or window frame (Fig .1), comprising:
a glazing groove (into which 38 is inserted) adapted to receive a glazing (38);
a groove (34) oriented towards a weather side (Fig. 1) of the door and/or window frame (14) with two opposing groove flanks (top and bottom edges of 34); and
a T-support profile (10) adapted to prevent a thermally induced dimensional change (Fig. 1, being made of EDPM) of the extrusion profile (14) and to support the glazing (38) transversely to a planar extension (Fig. 1) of the glazing (38), the T-support profile including (10) an abutment leg (24, 12) adapted to face (Fig. 1) the glazing (38) and a wedging leg (26) adapted to be engaged (Fig. 1)in the groove (34);
wherein a first portion (proximate 26) of wedging leg (26) is adapted to wedge against (Fig. 1) both of the groove flanks (top and bottom of 34) in response to a force being introduced into the T-support profile (10) as a result of resulting from a thermal dimensional change (expansion) of the extrusion profile (14) and/or a load (any load) acting on the glazing (38), the first portion (proximate 26) of the wedging leg (26) having an increased stability or strength against deformation (due to having the flexing prongs and being thicker) as compared to a second portion (the stem portion to the left of the flexible portion of 26) of the wedging leg (26),
but fails to disclose the T-support profile made of metal or fiber-reinforced plastics.
However, Fetting discloses T-support profile (per the above; 74) made of metal ([0054]) or fiber-reinforced plastics.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify T-support profile of Crow to be made of metal or fiber-reinforced plastics as disclosed by Fetting in order provide heat resistance, and allow working into various configurations ([0054]). In addition, 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. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
It should further be noted that the language “extrusion” in “extrusion profile” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 10, Crow as modified discloses the extrusion profile according to claim 9, wherein a distance between the groove flanks (top and bottom of 34) defining an opening cross section (Fig. 1) of the groove (34) and a wall thickness (including the fingers of 26) of the wedging leg (26) are matched to one another (as a result of the fingers of 26 flexing into contact with the top and bottom portions of 34).
Re claim 11, Crow as modified discloses the extrusion profile according to claim 9, wherein the wedging leg (26) is adapted, in response to the wedging leg (26) being wedged (Fig. 1) to the groove flanks (top and bottom of 34) to provide a direct force flow (via the flexing fingers of 26) between the groove flanks (top and bottom of 34) via the wedging leg (26).
Re claim 12, Crow as modified discloses the extrusion profile according to claim 9, wherein the wedging leg (26) and at least one of the groove flanks (top and bottom of 34) have a shape-corresponding surface structuring (such as the fingers of 26) adapted to connect the T-support profile (10) in a form-fitting manner and/or a force-fitting manner (Fig. 1) to the extrusion profile (14).
Re claim 14, Crow as modified discloses the extrusion profile according to claim 9, further comprising a profile web (top wall of 14), delimiting the glazing groove (34) free of support by a stiffening insert (Fig. 1 showing no stiffening insert), and/or a profile web (top wall of 14) of the extrusion profile (14) delimiting the groove (34), is free of support by a stiffening insert (Fig. 1 showing no stiffening insert).
Re claim 15, Crow as modified discloses the extrusion profile according to claim 9, a groove flank (top or bottom of 34) of the two groove flanks (top and bottom of 34) has a projection (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 1) adapted to project in a direction (Fig. 1) of the groove (34), the projection (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 1) being engaged behind a latch (fingers of 26) of the wedging leg (26).
Re claim 16, Crow as modified discloses a door and/or window 2 (Fig. 1) comprising; an extrusion profile (14) according to claim 9; (see above) and a glazing (38) adapted to be mounted to the extrusion profile (14).
Re claim 17, Crow as modified discloses the door and/or window frame (100) according to claim 16, comprising a closed frame structure (14) formed from the extrusion profile (14).
Re claim 18, Crow as modified discloses the extrusion profile according to claim 15, wherein, in response to a force being introduced into the T-support profile (10) as a result of a thermal dimensional change of the extrusion profile (14) and/or a load acting (any load) on the glazing (38), the latch (fingers of 26) is adapted to be urged away from (due to the springing force) the groove flank (top and bottom of 34).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crow (GB2279101) in view of Hardy (GB2110285).
Re claim 2, Crow discloses the T-support profile according to claim 1, but fails to dislcose wherein a wall thickness of the wedging leg increases, at least sectionally, towards a wedging lug facing away from the abutment leg.
However, Hardy discloses wherein a wall thickness (of 17) of the wedging leg (17a) increases (Fig. 2), at least sectionally, towards a wedging lug (17B) facing away from the abutment leg (17C).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the T-support profile of Crow wherein a wall thickness of the wedging leg increases, at least sectionally, towards a wedging lug facing away from the abutment leg as disclosed by Hardy in order to provide rigidity in the connecting feature of the T-support profile, as a wedge shape with a protrusion as in Hardy would provide less flex and opportunity for fracture than 26 of Crow.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crow (GB2279101) in view of Knapp (US 2018/0355656).
Re claim 4, Crow discloses the T-support profile according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the abutment leg comprises, at an end facing away from the glazing, a latching projection adapted to engage behind a web of the extrusion profile.
However, Knapp discloses wherein the abutment leg (25) comprises, at an end (right end of 25) facing away from the glazing (1), a latching projection (34) adapted to engage behind (Fig. 1) a web (29) of the extrusion profile (13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the T-support profile of Crow wherein the abutment leg comprises, at an end facing away from the glazing, a latching projection adapted to engage behind a web of the extrusion profile as disclosed by Knapp in order to provide a catch for simpler assembly ([0033]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crow (GB2279101) in view of Kalverkamp (US 2023/0175310).
Re claim 6, Crow discloses the T-support profile according to claim 5, wherein: the material of the T-support profile (10) comprises a surface structuring (fingers of 26) adapted to interlock with (Fig. 1) the material of the extrusion profile (14) when wedging with (Fig. 1) the extrusion profile (14), but fails to disclose the T-support profile is made of a material having a higher hardness and/or strength than a material of the extrusion profile.
However, Kalverkamp discloses the T-support profile (Crow: 10) is made of a material (at 21 and 22) having a higher hardness ([0042]) and/or strength than a material of the extrusion profile ([0043], 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the T-support profile of Crow wherein T-support profile is made of a material having a higher hardness and/or strength than a material of the extrusion profile as disclosed by Kalverkamp in order to provide increased strength and durability for the T-shaped support profile, especially as Crow specifically identifies the material of 24 as being rigid material.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crow (GB2279101) in view of Fetting et al (“Fetting”) (US 2017/0074029) and Kalverkamp (US 2023/0175310).
Re claim 13, Crow discloses the extrusion profile according to claim 9, wherein: the material of the T-support profile (10) comprises a surface structuring (fingers of 26) adapted to interlock with (Fig. 1) the material of the extrusion profile (14) in response to a wedging with (Fig. 1) the extrusion profile (14), but fails to disclose the T-support profile is made of a material having a higher hardness and/or strength than a material of the extrusion profile.
However, Kalverkamp discloses the T-support profile (Crow: 10) is made of a material (at 21 and 22) having a higher hardness ([0042]) and/or strength than a material of the extrusion profile ([0043], 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extrusion profile of Crow wherein T-support profile is made of a material having a higher hardness and/or strength than a material of the extrusion profile as disclosed by Kalverkamp in order to provide increased strength and durability for the T-shaped support profile, especially as Crow specifically identifies the material of 24 as being rigid material.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crow (GB2279101) in view of Lebron et al (“Lebron”) (US 2017/0234058).
Re claim 20, Crow discloses the T-support profile according to claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising another adhesive disposed on the wedging leg and adapted to attach the wedging leg to the extrusion profile in the groove.
However, Lebron discloses further comprising another adhesive (55; [0037]) disposed on the wedging leg (22) and adapted to attach the wedging leg (22) to the extrusion profile (10) in the groove (12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the T-support profile of Crow further comprising another adhesive disposed on the wedging leg and adapted to attach the wedging leg to the extrusion profile in the groove as disclosed by Lebron in order to enhance stability and mating of the features ([0037]).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crow (GB2279101).
Re claim 21, Crow discloses the T-support profile according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein an area moment of inertia about a wedging leg extension direction is at least 0.25 cm4 and/or an area moment of inertia about an abutment leg extension direction is at least 0.02 cm4.
However, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the T-support profile of Crow wherein an area moment of inertia about a wedging leg extension direction is at least 0.25 cm4 and/or an area moment of inertia about an abutment leg extension direction is at least 0.02 cm4 in order to better prevent warping and/or bending, as designing to a specific area moment of inertia to prevent such is the normal and logical reasons for doing so.
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
323
413
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102 and/or 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the amended language of claim 1, and alleges that Crow does not disclose this feature. However, as noted above, Crow discloses an adhesive 16 which serves to adhere 12/14 to 38. Thus, Crow discloses the claimed feature.
Applicant argues that, as claimed, the claims require that the adhesive and wedging leg are disposed on the same side of the T-support profile, creating a unified structural engagement. This is a feature which is not claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Next, Applicant argues that Crow’s adhesive 16 only contacts the inner surface of 38 and not the frame/profile itself. The claims require that the adhesive is disposed on a surface of the abutment leg and is adapted to face the glazing to form a form fit seal of the T-support profile with the glazing and the extrusion. The claim does not require any contact of the adhesive to the frame/profile. It merely requires that the adhesive is (1) disposed on the abutment leg, (2) is capable of facing the glazing, and (3) is capable of forming a form fit seal with the profile, glazing and extrusion. 16 seals the space between the abutment leg and the glazing, and thus, forms a form fit sealing engagement with the profile, glazing and extrusion.
With respect to claim 9, Applicant argues the amended language. The claim language makes no mention of how strength and stability differ between the claimed parts. Merely being a different shape, thickness, size creates a difference in stability and/or strength of the claimed parts. As the wedging leg of Crow is not uniform across the length, it constitutes having a first portion and a second portion with differing strength/stability characteristics.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the remaining claims are addressed by the above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 Mattei can be reached on (571)270-3238. 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635