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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leininger (U.S. Patent No. 1,380,661) in view of Pardue (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0174006).
Regarding claim 1, Leininger discloses a screen [FIGS. 1, 3] comprising: a frame (frame defined by leg members 14, 16, and 17) having a plurality of adjoined leg members (14, 16, 17) that contiguously form a defined shape substantially in a first plane (as shown in Figures 1 and 3, the screen frame defines a shape substantially in the plane of the sash; it is noted that in the context of the disclosure, the definition of the shape “substantially in a first plane” explicitly does not require that the shape be entirely constrained within a single plane, as the camber of the legs would render such a constraint impossible); and a screening mesh (13) affixed to the frame [FIG. 1], wherein at least one of the plurality of adjoined leg members is constructed with a camber in a second plane, the second plane being transverse to the first plane (as shown in Figures 1 and 3, the leg members 14 are cambered in a second transverse plane); wherein the frame is configured to deflect when the frame is inserted in a channel in a loaded state (insertion of the frame into the channel of the window guideways is shown in Figure 3; the deflection of leg members 14 of the frame when inserted is also shown in Figure 3 and described on page 2, lines 49-65).
Leininger does not explicitly disclose that the frame is adapted to maintain the camber in the second plane when in an unloaded state.
Nonetheless, Pardue discloses a screen comprising a frame (710) having a plurality of adjoined leg members (side edges 712, 714, and corresponding top and bottom edges), wherein at least one of the plurality of adjoined leg members is constructed with a camber [FIG. 7B], wherein the frame is adapted to maintain the camber in the second plane when in an unloaded state (paragraph 0044 discloses that the side edges 712, 714 of the frame may be curved in an unloaded state).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of Leininger to maintain the camber in an unloaded state, as taught by Pardue, in order to provide resistance against bending in the opposite direction of the camber, so as to ensure a reliable fit for the frame within the window that is more secure against wind or other forces that could dislodge the screen.
Regarding claim 3, Leininger discloses that the screen comprises a first (side leg members 14) and second (upper and lower leg members 16, 17) pair of opposing leg members, wherein the first pair of opposing members is cambered and the second pair of opposing members is substantially linear [FIGS. 1, 3].
Regarding claim 4, Leininger discloses that the first pair of opposing members is longer than the second pair such that the defined shape is a rectangle [FIG. 1].
Regarding claim 5, Leininger discloses that at least two of the plurality of adjoined leg members are cambered (side leg members 14 are cambered as shown in Figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 6, Leininger discloses that the frame further comprises a concave side and a convex side, and further wherein the screening mesh is affixed to the concave side (as shown in Figure 5, the screening mesh 13 is wrapped around the leg members 14 at portion 15, thereby affixing the screening mesh to the concave side of the frame).
Regarding claim 7, Leininger discloses a cambered window or door screen [FIGS. 1, 3] adapted for use with a window or door having a channel for receiving the screen (page 2, lines 41-65; the window includes guideways 9 that define a channel receiving the screen as shown in Figure 3), the screen comprising: a frame (frame defined by leg members 14, 16, and 17) having a plurality of adjoined leg members (14, 16, 17) that contiguously form a defined shape substantially in a first plane (as shown in Figures 1 and 3, the screen frame defines a shape substantially in the plane of the sash); and a screening mesh (13) affixed to the frame [FIG. 1], wherein at least one of the plurality of adjoined leg members is constructed with a camber in a second plane [FIGS. 1, 3], the second plane being transverse to the first plane (as shown in Figures 1 and 3, the leg members 14 are cambered in a second transverse plane), and wherein the at least one cambered leg member engages with the channel to secure the screen within the channel (page 2, lines 41-65) [FIG. 3]; and wherein the channel has a channel width (width of the guideways 9 shown in Figure 3), wherein the cambered screen has a cambered width in the second plane that is greater than the channel width (the screen can have a cambered width greater than the width of the channel as shown in at least Figure 2), and wherein the frame is configured to deflect in a loaded state for insertion into and removal from the channel (page 2, lines 41-65).
Leininger does not explicitly disclose that the frame is adapted to maintain the camber in the second plane when in an unloaded state.
Nonetheless, Pardue discloses a screen comprising a frame (710) having a plurality of adjoined leg members (side edges 712, 714, and corresponding top and bottom edges), wherein at least one of the plurality of adjoined leg members is constructed with a camber [FIG. 7B], wherein the frame is adapted to maintain the camber in the second plane when in an unloaded state (paragraph 0044 discloses that the side edges 712, 714 of the frame may be curved in an unloaded state).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of Leininger to maintain the camber in an unloaded state, as taught by Pardue, in order to provide resistance against bending in the opposite direction of the camber, so as to ensure a reliable fit for the frame within the window that is more secure against wind or other forces that could dislodge the screen. It is further noted that the channel is not positively recited in the claim, and therefore, the channel width is also not a positive requirement. The frame of Leininger, as modified by Pardue, would include a camber that would inherently have a cambered width that is larger than at least a channel having a width equal to non-cambered width of the frame, thereby satisfying the requirements of the intended use limitation directed to the cambered width and the channel width.
Regarding claim 9, Leininger discloses that the screen comprises a first (side leg members 14) and second (upper and lower leg members 16, 17) pair of opposing leg members, wherein the first pair of opposing members is cambered and the second pair of opposing members is substantially linear [FIGS. 1, 3].
Regarding claim 10, Leininger discloses that the first pair of opposing members is longer than the second pair such that the defined shape is a rectangle [FIG. 1].
Regarding claim 11, Leininger discloses that the channel extends at least on opposing sides of the window or door frame and each of the first pair of opposing members engages with the channel to secure the screen (page 2, lines 41-65) [FIGS. 1, 3].
Regarding claim 12, Leininger discloses that the channel has a first wall and a second wall and each of the first pair of opposing members engages the first wall of the channel at a midpoint of the member and engages the second wall at each of two endpoints of the member, whereby the screen is secured in the channel (the walls of the channel 9 are shown in Figure 3; a midpoint of the leg members 14 contacts the first wall on the left side of the drawing as shown in Figure 3 and the endpoints of the leg members 14 contact the second wall on the right side of the drawing as shown in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 13, Leininger discloses that at least two of the plurality of adjoined leg members are cambered (side leg members 14 are cambered as shown in Figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 14, Leininger discloses that the frame further comprises a concave side and a convex side, and further wherein the screening mesh is affixed to the concave side (as shown in Figure 5, the screening mesh 13 is wrapped around the leg members 14 at portion 15, thereby affixing the screening mesh to the concave side of the frame).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leininger (U.S. Patent No. 1,380,661) in view of Pardue (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0174006), as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Kraus (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0240721).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Leininger, as modified above, discloses the frame, but does not disclose that it is formed from a single piece of wire.
Nonetheless, Kraus discloses a screen frame formed from single piece of wire (301) having a first end and a second end [FIGS. 10, 11], the wire is bent in a plurality of locations (corners 1002) and the first end is adjoined to the second end to establish a defined shape (paragraph 0047).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of Leininger, as modified above, to be formed from a single piece of wire, as taught by Kraus, in order to enable faster manufacturing of the screen assembly, and to enable easier production of specific screen shapes or sizes for custom manufacturing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Leininger fails to disclose a camber and the combination of Leininger and Pardue is improper, as Pardue teaches a fundamentally different principle of operation and would render the device of Leininger unfit for its intended purpose. This argument is not found persuasive. Pardue is relied upon in the rejection to teach a frame member having a camber in an unloaded state, and is not relied upon to teach the use of a rigid panel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the means by which the screen assembly of Leininger could be modified to include the unloaded camber taught by Pardue without also requiring the use of a rigid panel. The frame of Leininger is disclosed as being formed from spring metal, which is inherently capable of being formed with a camber in an unloaded state. As set forth in the rejection above, Pardue teaches a screen including a frame with a camber in an unloaded state, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of Leininger to have such a camber, in order to ensure a reliable and secure fit.
It is further noted that the camber taught by Pardue does not render the frame or screen assembly entirely rigid, or otherwise teach away from the type of deflection necessary for the operation of the screen assembly of Leininger. Paragraph 0044 of Pardue recites in part “Importantly, a panel 716 in the storm window 710 is formed with a pre-determined curve along its entire the top edge. The bottom edge (not illustrated) may be similarly curved, which gives the panel 716, overall, a partial-cylinder shape, and thereby creating a relatively stiff construction of the panel. Such a panel 716 is very resistant to bending, under force, across its vertical axis, while it would be more inclined to deflect across its horizontal axis.” Pardue explicitly teaches that the panel is more inclined to deflect across its horizontal axis (i.e. the axis across which the screen assembly of Leininger is configured to deflect). Pardue does not teach that the camber of the screen assembly results in an entirely rigid assembly that is unable to deflect. Applicant’s argument that adopting Pardue’s pre-curved construction would render the screen of Leininger unsatisfactory for its intended purpose is therefore not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Pardue is nonanalogous 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, Pardue is considered to be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to a screen assembly intended to be installed within a window frame.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ABE L MASSAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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.
/ABE MASSAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights