DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 12/13/2025.
Status of the claims: Claims 1-20 are hereby examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 states that the section that includes the hole is stiffer than the other two sections. It is unclear how this is accomplished and what makes the frame stiffer.
Dependent claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
Claims are being examined as best understood.
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.
Claims 1,4,5,6,7, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCutcheon GB2,092,213.
In regard to claim 1, McCutcheon ‘213 discloses a window screen frame for use in a greywater system, comprising a window screen frame (19)(22) for use in a greywater system, the window screen frame further comprising an interior facing side (right side, Figure 2), an exterior facing side (left side, Figure 2); and a wastewater transfer hole (18) configured to allow wastewater to pass into the window screen frame's interior facing side and out of the exterior facing side for reuse as greywater.
In regard to claim 4, McCutcheon ‘213 discloses the hole (18) is located at, or below, the midpoint of the window screen frame's height. (it passes through midpoint of (19,22)
In regard to claim 5, McCutcheon ‘213 discloses a hole cover (16).
In regard to claim 6, McCutcheon ‘213 discloses the cover (16) being located on the window screen frame's interior facing side.
In regard to claim 7, McCutcheon ‘213 discloses the hole (18) further comprising two ends, Including a first end that begins on the interior facing side (right side, Figure 2) of the window screen frame, a second end that terminates at the exterior facing side (left side, Figure 2) of the window screen frame, and the first end is higher than the second end. (Figure 2)
In regard to claim 12, McCutcheon ‘213 discloses an apparatus for use in a greywater system, comprising an apparatus (19,22) for use in a greywater system that is configured to be placed in a window screen frame's track, the apparatus further comprises an interior facing side (right side, Figure 2), an exterior facing side (left side, Figure 2), a top length side, a hole (at 18) configured to allow wastewater to pass through the apparatus for reuse as greywater; and a track (on 19, shown below) located on the top length side of the apparatus configured to receive a window screen's frame.
PNG
media_image1.png
468
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 13, McCutcheon ‘213 discloses the track (shown above) located on the top length side, further comprising a mounting structure, that includes groove.
In regard to claim 14, McCutcheon ‘213 discloses the track (shown above) located on the top length side of the apparatus further being located above the hole (through which 18 passes).
In regard to claim 15, McCutcheon ‘213 discloses the hole (at 18) includes downward slope, the downward slope beginning at the interior facing side (right side, Figure 2) of the apparatus and ending at the exterior facing side (left side, Figure 2) of the apparatus.
In regard to claim 16, McCutcheon ‘213 discloses a spout (left end of 18) on the exterior facing side (left side, Figure 2).
In regard to claim 17, McCutcheon ‘213 discloses a hole cover (16) located on the interior facing side of the apparatus.
In regard to claim 18, McCutcheon ‘213 discloses the hole cover (16) further opening downward.
In regard to claim 20, McCutcheon ‘213 discloses a bottom window screen frame track (19)
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strohmeyer US 6,634,407.
In regard to claim 8, Strohmeyer ‘407 discloses a window screen for a greywater system, comprising a window screen (28) for a greywater system, the window screen further includes an opening (14) configured to allow wastewater to pass through the opening for reuse in a greywater system.
In regard to claim 9, Strohmeyer ‘407 discloses the opening (14) being located on the screen at a height that is at, or below, the midpoint of a window screen frame's (unnumbered, shown below) height that holds the window screen (28).
PNG
media_image2.png
358
442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 10, Strohmeyer ‘407 discloses including a reinforced edge (via 11) around the opening (14).
In regard to claim 11, Strohmeyer ‘407 discloses an opening cover (21) that is attached to the window screen.
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.
As best understood, claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCutcheon GB2,092,213.
In regard to claim 2,McCutcheon ‘213 discloses a window screen frame (19)(22) comprising a section including a height. McCutcheon fails to explicitly disclose the window screen frame further comprising four sections; and at least one of the four sections includes a height, as measured from the outside edge of the frame section to the inside edge of the frame section, that is greater than two of the window screen frame's other sections.
The examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known to make a window frame include four sections (top, bottom and sides) and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of McCutcheon ‘213 to make the frame be comprise four section for the purpose of securely holding the window or screen in place.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the height of one of the sections be greater than two of the other sections for the purposes of increased strength based on more material or for a desired overall appearance. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, changes in size or shape without special functional significance are not patentable. Research Corp.v. Nasco Industries, Inc., 501 F2d 358; 182 USPQ 449 (CA 7) cert. Denied 184 USPQ 193; 43 USLW 3359 (1974).
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s acceptance of examiner’s Official Notice that it is well known in the art to make the window frame in four sections. Applicant’s lack of arguments or traversal results in the Official Notice being acknowledged as admitted prior art. Per MPEP 2144.03 [R-1] (C) (emphasis by examiner):
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate.
Thus the issues are considered admitted prior art.
In regard to claim 3, McCutcheon ‘213 discloses the frame (19)(22) includes the hole (18) and is stiff (page 1, column 2, lines 115-125 recite a plastics material with limited resilient deformation).McCutcheon fails to explicitly disclose the frame includes four sections, and the section including the hole is stiffer than two other sections.
The examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known to make a window frame include four sections (top, bottom and sides) and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of McCutcheon ‘213 to make the frame be comprise four section for the purpose of securely holding the window or screen in place.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to make the frame section including the hole be stiffer than other sections as it is on the bottom and may come into contact with obstacles thus it may increase resistance to breaking to make it stiffer than the rest of the frame.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s acceptance of examiner’s Official Notice that it is well known in the art to make the window frame in four sections. Applicant’s lack of arguments or traversal results in the Official Notice being acknowledged as admitted prior art. Per MPEP 2144.03 [R-1] (C) (emphasis by examiner):
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate.
Thus the issues are considered admitted prior art.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCutcheon GB2,092,213 in view of Iles et al US 11,125,012.
In regard to claim 19, McCutcheon ‘213 fails to disclose a window screen tension spring.
Iles et al ‘012 disclose a window screen tension spring (370).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of McCutcheon to include a window screen tension spring as taught by Iles et al ‘012 for the purpose of helping to hold and secure a window screen in place within the device.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's argument that McCutcheon is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, McCutcheon is directed to a means for removing water from a window, which is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is concerned.
In response to applicant’s argument that McCutcheon does not removable window frame, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a removable screen frame) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
In response to applicant’s argument that Strohmeyer does not mention or disclose wastewater, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In regard to claims 2 and 3, applicant states that examiners motivation lacks the articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. The examiner disagrees with this. As stated above, it would have been obvious to include an increased section height for the purposes increased strength based on more material or for a desired overall appearance and to include an increased stiffness to increase resistance to damage. Each of these are a clearly articulated reasoning with rational underpinning as required by KSR.
In response to applicant’s argument against the Iles reference individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Iles is used to only teach a window screen tension spring, and such would be applicable to the window of McCutcheon.
In response to applicant’s argument that limitations of dependent claims (10,13,18,20) are not taught, these arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As shown in the rejection above, these limitations are taught.
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 JEREMY C RAMSEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3133. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 7:00-3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/JEREMY C RAMSEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634