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 21-22 are pending.
Claims 18-19 are cancelled.
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 1-8 and 21 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 1, claim 1 recites, “an adhesive disposed on a surface of the abutment leg.” The specification identifies the adhesive on the abutment leg as 13. Claim 1 further recites, “wherein the adhesive contacts both the glazing and the extrusion profile to form a force fit….engagement…with the glazing and the extrusion profile.” The language, as amended, requires that adhesive 13 contacts the glazing and the extrusion profile. Although Applicant contends this feature is shown in Fig. 2, the Examiner cannot find support therein. 13 is shown contacting 103, the glazing. However, the extrusion profile is 50, and 13 does not contact 50. 13 is sandwiched between 3 and 103, but does not contact 50. It does however contact an additional, unlabeled component proximate 51. This element is wholly separate from the framing extrusion profile 50. 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. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be interpreted as requiring that adhesive contacts the glazing profile and the surface of the abutment leg.
Claims 2-8 and 21 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 1-8 and 21 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 1, claim 1 recites, “an adhesive disposed on a surface of the abutment leg.” The specification identifies the adhesive on the abutment leg as 13. Claim 1 further recites, “wherein the adhesive contacts both the glazing and the extrusion profile to form a force fit….engagement…with the glazing and the extrusion profile.” The language, as amended, requires that adhesive 13 contacts the glazing and the extrusion profile. Although Applicant contends this feature is shown in Fig. 2, the Examiner cannot find support therein. 13 is shown contacting 103, the glazing. However, the extrusion profile is 50, and 13 does not contact 50. 13 is sandwiched between 3 and 103, but does not contact 50. It does however contact an additional, unlabeled component proximate 51. This element is wholly separate from the framing extrusion profile 50. Thus, it is unclear how the adhesive contacts the extrusion profile. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be interpreted as requiring that adhesive contacts the glazing profile and the surface of the abutment leg.
Claims 2-8 and 21 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) 9-12, 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lebron et al (“Lebron”) (US 2017/0234058).
Re claim 9, Lebron discloses an extrusion profile (10) for a door and/or window frame (Fig. 9), comprising:
a glazing groove (at the intersection of 94 and 11) adapted to receive a glazing (90);
a groove (14) oriented towards a weather side (Fig. 9) of the door and/or window frame (10) with two opposing groove flanks (top and bottom edges of 14); and
a T-support profile (35) made of metal ([0053]) or fiber-reinforced plastics, the T-support profile (35) adapted to prevent a thermally induced dimensional change ([0053]) of the extrusion profile (10) and to support the glazing (90) transversely to a planar extension (Fig. 9) of the glazing (90), the T-support profile including (35) an abutment leg (32) adapted to face (Fig. 9) the glazing (90) and a wedging leg (34) adapted to be engaged (Fig. 9) in the groove (14);
wherein the wedging leg (34) is adapted to wedge against (Fig. 9) both of the groove flanks (top and bottom of 14) in response to a force being introduced into the T-support profile (35) as a result of resulting from a thermal dimensional change (expansion) of the extrusion profile (10) and/or a load (any load) acting on the glazing (90), and a wall thickness (of 34) of the wedding leg (34) increasing (due to wedge fingers on 34), at least sectionally (Fig. 9), towards an end (left end of 34) of the wedging leg (34).
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, Lebron discloses the extrusion profile according to claim 9, wherein a distance between the groove flanks (top and bottom of 14) defining an opening cross section (Fig. 9) of the groove (14) and a wall thickness (including the fingers of 34) of the wedging leg (34) are matched to one another (Fig. 9).
Re claim 11, Lebron discloses the extrusion profile according to claim 9, wherein the wedging leg (34) is adapted, in response to the wedging leg (34) being wedged (Fig. 9) to the groove flanks (top and bottom of 14) to provide a direct force flow (via the flexing fingers of 34) between the groove flanks (top and bottom of 14) via the wedging leg (34).
Re claim 12, Lebron discloses the extrusion profile according to claim 9, wherein the wedging leg (34) and at least one of the groove flanks (top and bottom of 14) have a shape-corresponding surface structuring (such as the fingers of 34) adapted to connect the T-support profile (35) in a form-fitting manner and/or a force-fitting manner (Fig. 9) to the extrusion profile (10).
Re claim 14, Lebron discloses the extrusion profile according to claim 9, further comprising a profile web (11), delimiting the glazing groove (at the intersection of 94 and 10) free of support by a stiffening insert (Fig. 9 showing no stiffening insert), and/or a profile web (11) of the extrusion profile (10) delimiting the groove (at the intersection of 94 and 10), is free of support by a stiffening insert (Fig. 9 showing no stiffening insert).
Re claim 15, Lebron discloses the extrusion profile according to claim 9, a groove flank (top or bottom of 14) of the two groove flanks (top and bottom of 14) has a projection (between areas which receive the fingers) adapted to project in a direction (Fig. 9) of the groove (14), the projection (between areas which receive the fingers) being engaged behind a latch (fingers of 34) of the wedging leg (34).
Re claim 16, Lebron discloses a door and/or window 2 (Fig. 1) comprising; an extrusion profile (10) according to claim 9; (see above) and a glazing (90) adapted to be mounted to the extrusion profile (10).
Re claim 17, Lebron discloses the door and/or window frame (100) according to claim 16, comprising a closed frame structure (10; Fig. 10) formed from the extrusion profile (10).
Re claim 18, Lebron discloses the extrusion profile according to claim 15, wherein, in response to a force being introduced into the T-support profile (35) as a result of a thermal dimensional change of the extrusion profile (10) and/or a load acting (any load) on the glazing (90), the latch (fingers of 34) is adapted to be urged away from (due to any springing force, or any vertical movement) the groove flank (top and bottom of 14).
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, 5, 7-8, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebron et al (“Lebron”) (US 2017/0234058) in view of Franklin (US 2008/0196342).
Re claim 1, Lebron discloses a T-support profile (Fig. 9 35) for a glazing (90) mountable on an extrusion profile (10) of a door and/or window frame ([0041]), the extrusion profile (10) having a groove (14) oriented towards a weather side (Fig. 9) of the door and/or window frame ([0041]), the T-support profile (35) comprising:
an abutment leg (32) adapted to: face the glazing (90), and in an assembled state (Fig. 9) of the T-support profile (35) on the extrusion profile (10), extend parallel to (Fig. 9) a planar extension (of 90) of the glazing (90);
an element (98) disposed on a surface (right surface of 32) of the abutment leg (32), the surface (right surface of 32) being adapted to face (Fig. 9) the glazing (90), wherein the element (98) contacts both (Fig. 9) the glazing (90) and the extrusion profile (10; as 32 as interpreted) to form a force fit (Fig. 9) and sealing engagement (Fig. 9) of the T-support profile (35) with the glazing (90) and the extrusion profile (10); and
a wedging leg (34) extending transversely from (Fig. 9) the same surface (right surface of 32) of the abutment leg (32) on which the element (98) is disposed (Fig. 9) and transversely to (Fig. 9) the planar extension (of 90) of the glazing (90), the wedging leg (34) being adapted to engage in (Fig. 9) the groove (14) of the extrusion profile (10),
but fails to disclose the element as an adhesive.
However, Franklin discloses the element (110) as an adhesive ([0027]), and further discloses the adhesive (110) contacting (Fig. 1) the extrusion profile (80).
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 Lebron with the element as an adhesive, and further discloses the adhesive contacting the extrusion profile as disclosed by Franklin in order to more rigidly secure the extrusion profile, T-support profile and glazing together.
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 5, Lebron as modified discloses the T-support profile according to claim 1, wherein the wedging leg (34) comprises a surface structuring (fingers of 34) adapted to produce a form-fitting connection and/or a force-fitting connection (Fig. 9) with the extrusion profile (10) when wedging with (Fig. 9) the extrusion profile (10).
Re claim 7, Lebron as modified discloses the T-support profile according to claim 1, but wherein the T- support profile (35) is made of metal ([0053]) or fiber-reinforced plastic.
Re claim 8, Lebron as modified discloses the T-support profile according to claim 1, wherein the wedging leg (34) comprises a latch (fingers on 34) arranged on a section (on 34) adjacent to the abutment leg (32) and/or adapted to be urged away from a groove flank delimiting the groove in response to a load being applied to the T-support profile against the wedging leg extension direction (as this is an and/or clause).
Re claim 21, Lebron as modified 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 Lebron 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebron et al (“Lebron”) (US 2017/0234058) in view of Franklin (US 2008/0196342) and Hardy (GB2110285).
Re claim 2, Lebron as modified discloses the T-support profile according to claim 1, but fails to disclose 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 Lebron 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 that of Lebron.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebron et al (“Lebron”) (US 2017/0234058) in view of Franklin (US 2008/0196342) and Wruck et al (“Wruck”) (US 5,408,784).
Re claim 3, Lebron as modified discloses the T-support profile according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the abutment leg includes at least one abutment projection projecting from a planar surface of the abutment leg, the at least one abutment projection being adapted to abut against the extrusion profile.
However, Wruck discloses wherein the abutment leg (12) includes at least one abutment projection (22) projecting from a planar surface (Fig. 1) of the abutment leg (12), the at least one abutment projection (22) being adapted to abut against the extrusion profile (22 is capable of abutting against an extrusion profile, as this is a statement of intended use).
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 Lebron wherein the abutment leg includes at least one abutment projection projecting from a planar surface of the abutment leg, the at least one abutment projection being adapted to abut against the extrusion profile as disclosed by Wruck in order to direct water (Col 2 line 56).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebron et al (“Lebron”) (US 2017/0234058) in view of Franklin (US 2008/0196342) and Knapp (US 2018/0355656).
Re claim 4, Lebron as modified 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 Lebron 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 Lebron et al (“Lebron”) (US 2017/0234058) in view of Franklin (US 2008/0196342) and Kalverkamp (US 2023/0175310).
Re claim 6, Lebron as modified discloses the T-support profile according to claim 5, wherein: the material of the T-support profile (35) comprises a surface structuring (fingers of 34) adapted to interlock with (Fig. 9) the material of the extrusion profile (10) when wedging with (Fig. 9) the extrusion profile (10), 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 (Lebron: 35) 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 Lebron 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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebron et al (“Lebron”) (US 2017/0234058) in view of Kalverkamp (US 2023/0175310).
Re claim 13, Lebron discloses the extrusion profile according to claim 9, wherein: the material of the T-support profile (34) comprises a surface structuring (fingers of 34) adapted to interlock with (Fig. 9) the material of the extrusion profile (10) in response to a wedging with (Fig. 9) the extrusion profile (10), 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 (Lebron: 35) 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 Lebron 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.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebron et al (“Lebron”) (US 2017/0234058) in view of Franklin (US 2008/0196342) and Knapp (US 2018/0355656).
Re claim 22, Lebron discloses the extrusion profile according to claim 9, wherein the abutment leg (32) includes a surface (right surface of 32) configured to face (Fig. 9) the glazing (90), the wedging leg (34) extending from (Fig. 9) the surface (right surface of 35), but fails to disclose wherein the surface includes a recess between the wedging leg and an abutment projection projecting from the surface of the abutment leg, the abutment projection being configured to face and contact the extrusion profile and/or the glazing, and the surface at the recess being spaced from the extrusion profile and/or the glazing.
However, Knapp discloses wherein the surface (see examiner comments) includes a recess (see examiner comments) between the wedging leg (24) and an abutment projection (25) projecting from the surface (see examiner comments) of the abutment leg (see examiner comments), the abutment projection (25) being configured to face and contact the extrusion profile and/or the glazing (25 is capable of facing and contacting an extrusion profile and/or a glazing, as this is a statement of intended use), and the surface (see examiner comments) at the recess (see examiner comments) being spaced from (Fig. 5) the extrusion profile and/or the glazing (1).
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 Lebron wherein the surface includes a recess between the wedging leg and an abutment projection projecting from the surface of the abutment leg, the abutment projection being configured to face and contact the extrusion profile and/or the glazing, and the surface at the recess being spaced from the extrusion profile and/or the glazing as disclosed by Knapp in order to provide a catches for simpler assembly ([0033]). Moreover, use of the recess would allow for a degree of flexure when installing the profile.
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
526
407
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered are persuasive. Rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112 are hereby withdrawn (for those reasons in the previous rejection). However, new grounds of rejection are provided above.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102 and/or 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot as they do not apply to any of the combination of references relied upon in the above.
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 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
Prosecution Insights