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 .
The claims received 2/26/2026 are entered. All claims 1-20 are original.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess (US 4,461,502), in view of Fennell et al (US 4,927,198), and in view of Lynes (US 2,069,012).
Regarding claim 1, Burgess discloses a device comprising:
a beam (13) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end;
a threaded nut (40) fixedly attached to the beam at about the first end, wherein the threaded nut is sized and dimensioned to cover the first end of the beam;
a bolt (14) comprising a bolt head (12) attached to a threaded shank, wherein:
the bolt is connected to the threaded nut (40) via the threaded shank being disposed within the threaded nut,
the bolt is slidable along a longitudinal axis of the beam by turning the bolt with respect to the threaded nut (4:40-51), and
the bolt head comprises a diameter;
a threaded nut (45) connected to the threaded shank and disposed between the bolt head and the threaded nut, wherein the threaded nut is slidable along the longitudinal axis by turning the threaded nut about the threaded shank.
Burgess lacks a flanged threaded nut. Fennel discloses a locking device for windows including a flanged threaded nut (7a; 2:13-22 the washer is “tapped so as to engage with the threads on the rod”) attached to a beam (8) at a first wend, wherein a flange of the flanged threaded nut is sized and dimensioned to cover a first end of the beam (shown in figure 4, the flanged nut bears against the end of the beam).
It has been held that a "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” is obvious. In this instance the prior art provides for the beam itself being threaded as taught in Burgess and to provide a flanged nut to press against the beam as taught by Fennel. It is known in the art to substitute one for the other. The result of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 B. Further the flanged threaded nut arrangement allows for fine adjustment in situ as the beam itself is not rotated the second end thereof is less likely to mar the window.
Burgess lacks a cover. Lynes discloses a screw extensible device which includes a cover (26 and 7) disposed around an outside surface of a beam (12), wherein the cover is sized and dimensioned to slide along the longitudinal axis and to slide of the diameter of the bolt head (21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Burgess with a cover as taught by Lynes in order to protect the mechanism from dirt/debris, improve aesthetics, and/or protect the user from unintentional interaction with moveable parts.
Regarding claim 2, Burgess further discloses a pad (20) connected to the bolt head, opposite the threaded shank.
Regarding claim 3, Burgess discloses the pad is fixedly attached to the bolt head (the pad 20 is an element of the head 12 and is fixedly attached to the portion 21).
Regarding claim 4, Burgess discloses the pad (20) is about flat.
Regarding claim 5, Burgess discloses a cap (57) connected to the second end of the beam.
Regarding claim 6, Burgess discloses the cap (57) is removably attached to the second end of the beam (5:6-11).
Regarding claim 7, Burgess discloses a facing end of the cap (57) is about flat (the cap is a resilient material as discussed at column 5, while a curved end is shown in figure 3 in the installed condition illustrated in figure 2 the resilient material is compressed to form an about flat face).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess (US 4,461,502), in view of Fennell et al (US 4,927,198), in view of Lynes (US 2,069,012), and in view of Miller electric (“The History of Welding” Wayback Machine capture date 2/25/2016).
Regarding claim 8, Burgess as modified discloses the device of claim 1, but lacks that the flange of the flanged threaded nut (40) is welded to the first end of the beam (13).
The examiner previously took official notice that welded connections are old and well known.
Miller electric evidences that welding is old and well known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Burgess with a welded connection of the flange nut in order to provide a secure connection.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess (US 4,461,502), in view of Fennell et al (US 4,927,198), in view of Lynes (US 2,069,012), and in further view of Gardiner (US 2012/0211978).
Regarding claim 9, Burgess as modified discloses the device of claim 1, but lacks a second beam.
Gardiner discloses a pole assembly comprising: a second beam (306) comprising a first longitudinal section having a first inner diameter and a first outer diameter, and a second longitudinal section having a second inner diameter and a second outer diameter (diameter at 312 of figure 4), wherein: the first outer diameter of the second beam is less than an inner diameter of the beam (as shown in figure 4 portion 312 fits within 308), the second outer diameter of the second beam is about equal to an outer diameter of the beam (the diameters of 306 and 308 are about equal as shown in figure 4), and the second beam is connected to the beam by the first longitudinal section being disposed inside the second end of the beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Burgess with the second beam as taught by Gardiner in order to “thereby allowing the user to easily increase the overall length of the assembly by increments of a complete length of one pole” ([0068]). In other words, additional beams allow accommodating larger distances.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess (US 4,461,502), in view of Fennell et al (US 4,927,198), in view of Lynes (US 2,069,012), and in further view of Hartman (US 1,647,992).
Regarding claim 10, Burgess, as modified, discloses the device of claim 1, but lacks a second threaded nut at the bolt head.
The examiner previously took official notice that bolts used in extendable arrangements, e.g. furniture feet, include threaded nuts at the heads thereof.
Hartman discloses a second threaded nut (“B”) fixedly attached to a bolt head (“C”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Burgess with a second threaded nut in order to allow a used to utilize a wrench to rotate the bolt and adjust overall length.
Claim(s) 11-13, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess (US 4,461,502), in view of Fennell et al (US 4,927,198), in view of Lynes (US 2,069,012), and in view of Smith (US 2018/0128020).
Regarding claim 11, Burgess discloses a system comprising:
a window (1:7-8 “sliding window or door”) slidable to expose an opening in a structure, wherein the window is disposed within a frame connected to the structure and the window comprises a window edge; and
a device (1) disposed between the frame and the window edge (shown in figure 1; notably figure 1 shows a sliding door however as is explicitly disclosed the device is applicable to both sliding doors and windows), the device comprising:
a beam (13) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end;
a threaded nut (40) fixedly attached to the beam at about the first end, wherein the threaded nut is sized and dimensioned to cover the first end of the beam;
a bolt (14) comprising a bolt head (12) attached to a threaded shank, wherein:
the bolt is connected to the threaded nut (40) via the threaded shank being disposed within the threaded nut,
the bolt is slidable along a longitudinal axis of the beam by turning the bolt with respect to the threaded nut (4:40-51), and
the bolt head comprises a diameter;
a threaded nut (45) connected to the threaded shank and disposed between the bolt head and the threaded nut, wherein the threaded nut is slidable along the longitudinal axis by turning the threaded nut about the threaded shank.
Burgess lacks a flanged threaded nut. Fennel discloses a locking device for windows including a flanged threaded nut (7a; 2:13-22 the washer is “tapped so as to engage with the threads on the rod”) attached to a beam (8) at a first wend, wherein a flange of the flanged threaded nut is sized and dimensioned to cover a first end of the beam (shown in figure 4, the flanged nut bears against the end of the beam).
It has been held that a "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” is obvious. In this instance the prior art provides for the beam itself being threaded as taught in Burgess and to provide a flanged nut to press against the beam as taught by Fennel. It is known in the art to substitute one for the other. The result of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 B. Further the flanged threaded nut arrangement allows for fine adjustment in situ as the beam itself is not rotated the second end thereof is less likely to mar the window.
Burgess lacks a cover. Lynes discloses a screw extensible device which includes a cover (26 and 7) disposed around an outside surface of a beam (12), wherein the cover is sized and dimensioned to slide along the longitudinal axis and to slide of the diameter of the bolt head (21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Burgess with a cover as taught by Lynes in order to protect the mechanism from dirt/debris, improve aesthetics, and/or protect the user from unintentional interaction with moveable parts.
Burgess lacks an air conditioning unit. Smith discloses a system comprising: a window (190) slidable to expose an opening in a structure, wherein: the window is disposed within a frame connected to the structure, and the window comprises a window edge; an air conditioning unit (205) disposed within the opening; and a device (100) disposed between the frame and the window edge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the arrangement of Burgess/modified Burgess with the air conditioner as taught by Smith in order to maintain a securely locked window even when employed to support an air conditioning unit.
Regarding claim 12 Burgess further discloses a pad (20) connected to the bolt head, opposite the threaded shank.
Regarding claim 13, Burgess discloses a cap (57) connected to the second end of the beam.
Regarding claim 18, Burgess as modified above discloses the system of claim 11. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02. Therefor the apparatus as presented in claim 11 also reads on the method claim(s).
Regarding claim 20, Burgess further discloses inserting a cap (57) into the second end of the beam such that the cap is disposed between the beam and the frame; and inserting a pad (20) between the bolt head and the window edge.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess (US 4,461,502), in view of Fennell et al (US 4,927,198), in view of Lynes (US 2,069,012), in view of Smith (US 2018/0128020), and in further view of Miller electric (“The History of Welding” Wayback Machine capture date 2/25/2016).
Regarding claim 14, Burgess as modified discloses the device of claim 1, but lacks that the flange of the flanged threaded nut is welded to the first end of the beam.
The examiner previously took official notice that welded connections are old and well known.
Miller electric evidences that welding is old and well known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Burgess with a welded connection of the flange nut in order to provide a secure connection.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess (US 4,461,502), in view of Fennell et al (US 4,927,198), in view of Lynes (US 2,069,012), in view of Smith (US 2018/0128020) and in further view of Gardiner (US 2012/0211978).
Regarding claim 15, Burgess as modified discloses the device of claim 1, but lacks a second beam.
Gardiner discloses a pole assembly comprising: a second beam (306) comprising a first longitudinal section having a first inner diameter and a first outer diameter, and a second longitudinal section having a second inner diameter and a second outer diameter (diameter at 312 of figure 4), wherein: the first outer diameter of the second beam is less than an inner diameter of the beam (as shown in figure 4 portion 312 fits within 308), the second outer diameter of the second beam is about equal to an outer diameter of the beam (the diameters of 306 and 308 are about equal as shown in figure 4), and the second beam is connected to the beam by the first longitudinal section being disposed inside the second end of the beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Burgess with the second beam as taught by Gardiner in order to “thereby allowing the user to easily increase the overall length of the assembly by increments of a complete length of one pole” ([0068]). In other words, additional beams allow accommodating larger distances.
Regarding claim 16, Burgess discloses a cap (57), as modified in view of Gardiner to include a second beam to increase the extension length, it follows in the modification at claim 15 to provide the cap at the terminal or second beam in order to protect the window from marring.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess (US 4,461,502), in view of Fennell et al (US 4,927,198), in view of Lynes (US 2,069,012), in view of Smith (US 2018/0128020), and in further view of Hartman (US 1,647,992)
Regarding claim 17, Burgess, as modified, discloses the device of claim 1, but lacks a second threaded nut at the bolt head.
The examiner previously took official notice that bolts used in extendable arrangements, e.g. furniture feet, include threaded nuts at the heads thereof.
Hartman discloses a second threaded nut (“B”) fixedly attached to a bolt head (“C”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Burgess with a second threaded nut in order to allow a used to utilize a wrench to rotate the bolt and adjust overall length.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess (US 4,461,502), in view of Fennell et al (US 4,927,198), in view of Lynes (US 2,069,012), in view of Smith (US 2018/0128020), and in view of Brown (US 10,683,686)
Regarding claim 19, Burgess as modified discloses the method of claim 19 but lacks a second device. It has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04. Nonetheless Brown is provided who discloses two devices (48 and 50) for securing a window. It would have been obvious to have provided Burgess with a plurality of devices in order to predictably increase robustness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding a bolt head, Burgess provides a bolt head. Regarding the cover being “sized and dimensioned” the diameter of the cover is larger than the bolt head and thus is sized and dimensioned to slide thereon.
Regarding official notice, evidence is now provided as requested.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jefrey (US 5,727,767) threaded support stand
Wisecarver (US 3,880,394) extensible load brace
Mower (US 5,090,837) pole joint
Herion et al (US 9,187,900) load bearing tube joint
Claus (US 1,891,588) window safety device.
Hernandez (US 2024/0218707) sliding door stop.
Walsberg (US 7,780,128) leveling system and method
Jewett (US 9,260,895) window security device
Petry (US 4,792,169) sash safety lock
Holzbach (US 3,027,140) jack post
Tillman (“Hex vs. Heavy Hex Jam Nuts” 7/2/2018)
Fiddler (US 2,890,545) leg equalizer
Wood (US 2,930,639) length adjusting structure
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 CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799