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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final office action in response to the amendment filed 3/18/2026.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-17 and 24 are amended, and claims 2, 5 and 18-23 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-17 and 24 are pending and examined.
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.
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, 3-4, 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gennissen(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2017/0008379; cited previously on 892).
Gennissen discloses a window frame assembly(see Figs. 1, 2A and 2B) comprising:
a top frame member(top members of 12 and 28, see Figs. 1, 2A and 2B);
a bottom frame member(bottom members of 12 and 28, see Figs. 1, 2A and 2B);
a left side frame member(left side members of 12 and 28, see Figs. 1, 2A and 2B) connected between the top and bottom frame members; and
a right side frame member(right side members of 12 and 28, see Figs. 1, 2A and 2B) connected between the top and bottom frame members, wherein the top, bottom, left side, and right side frame members define a window frame(see para. [0063]; the disclosure does not specifically set forth that portion 12 of the frame assembly has top, bottom, left and right side members but it is considered inherent that the frame has top, bottom, and left and right frame members since Fig. 1 shows element 12 used with element 28, in Fig. 1, and Figs. 2A and 2B show elements 28 surrounding the window opening),
wherein each of the top, bottom, left side and right side frame members comprises a pair of inward-facing planar flanges(considered flange denoted as 28 and parallel flange including brush 41 therein, see Fig. 1; the flanges extend away from the wall and are therefore considered “inwardly-facing” meeting the claim limitation) defining an encasement channel within the window frame
wherein the left side and right side frame members include an L-shaped bracket(L-shaped portion at the top of 12 adjacent 10, the L-shape is considered the portion above 10 and parallel to 10 and the vertical portion extending from 10 toward an exterior of the opening, see Fig. 1) that extends outward and away from a forward opening of the window frame(the bracket is considered to extend outward from the wall 6 and away from the “forward” opening meaning the opening portion closest to the screen 34 meeting the claim limitation), and wherein the top and bottom frame members include an outermost flange(L-shaped portion at the top portion of 12 adjacent 10 in the top portion, see Fig. 1, the bracket extends farthest into the opening and is therefore considered “outermost meeting the claim limitation; the frame members are identical and surround the opening for the window) that engages the L-shaped bracket such that the outermost flange and the L-shaped bracket define an outboard mounting surface(L- shaped portions of members 12 adjacent 10 surrounding the opening, see Fig. 1) to which a glass pane(10) is securable(the glass pane is attached to the members of 12 surrounding the opening 8 and considered to meet the claim limitation), and
wherein the top and bottom frame members comprise from inward to outward a connector panel(portion of element 12 extending between bottom flange of 12 located under element 6 and portion adjacent left side of pane 10 considered closest to wall and 6 and therefore “inward”, see Fig. 1), an L-shaped extension(portion of element 12 extending toward element 6 and around element 48, see Fig. 1) secured to the connector panel, and the outermost flange secured to the L-shaped extension(see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Gennissen discloses the window frame assembly according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the top and bottom frame members comprises an inward-facing peripheral hook(adjacent element brush 41, see Fig. 1, the edges of the groove extend toward an inward portion of the assembly and meets the claim limitation) extending along a width of the at least one top and bottom frame member(see para. [0064]).
Regarding claim 4, Gennissen discloses the window frame assembly according to claim 1, wherein the top frame member and the bottom frame member are identical, and wherein the left side frame member and the right side frame member are identical(all of the frame members are denoted as 12/28 and therefore identical and considered to meet the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 7, Gennissen discloses the window frame assembly according to claim 5, wherein the left side and the right side frame members comprise from inward to outward an inward-facing planar flange(top most flange denoted 28 in Fig. 1), a primary bracket essentially perpendicular to the inward-facing planar flange(considered end portion between 28 and flange parallel to 28 including portion of parallel flange including brush 41, see Fig. 1), two connector channels(channels with 37 and 41 therein, see Fig. 1) coupled with the primary bracket, and the L-shaped bracket connected to the primary bracket(via 42, 58, 70, see Figs. 1, 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 8 Gennissen discloses the window frame assembly according to claim 7, wherein the two connector channels are oriented essentially perpendicular to each other(see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Gennissen discloses the window frame assembly according to claim 1, wherein the top and bottom frame members further comprise a forward- facing hook(hook portion between element denoted by reference number 12, also considered connector panel, and 6, see Fig. 1) connected to the connector panel(see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Gennissen discloses the window frame assembly according to claim 1, wherein each of the top, bottom, left side and right side frame members comprises a pair of inward-facing planar flanges(denoted 28 and flange parallel thereto, see Fig. 1; the term inward has been given no location limitation and considered met by the Gennissen reference) defining an encasement channel within the window frame(for receiving 34), the window frame assembly further comprising an encasement(considered 34) secured in the encasement channel, the encasement including at least one of a shade and a screen(34/34A, see Fig. 1; the term "encasement" lends no structural limitation to the claim and is therefore considered met by element 34 and/or 34A).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gennissen, as evidenced by Lack(U.S. Apt. Appl. Publ. 2007/0135034; cited on PTO 892).
Gennissen discloses the window frame assembly according to claim 1, wherein the connector panel is attached to the frame, but lacks the specific use of apertures at ends thereof for receiving connectors.
The use of connectors to attach window frames to walls/vehicles is considered well known in the construction art, as evidenced by Lack(see para. [0046]) and Fig. 6).
Therefore, the use of apertures in the member would have been well within the purview of a skilled artisan to have provided to attach the member to wall given the intended use of the assembly and design requirements thereof.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gennissen in view of Drohan.
Regarding claims 12-14, Gennissen discloses the window frame assembly with encasement according to claim 11, wherein the frame assembly has four frame portions(28) interconnected via connectors(30), with the encasement comprising a shade assembly secured in the continuous channel adjacent one end of the continuous channel and including the shade, and wherein the encasement comprises a screen assembly secured in the continuous channel adjacent an opposite end of the continuous channel and including the screen, one end of the shade(34, see Fig. 2B) is fixed in the one end of a continuous channel(see Figs 1. and 2B) and an opposite end of the shade is fixed to a shade header(32), and wherein one end of the screen(34A, see Fig. 2B) is fixed in the opposite end of a continuous channel and an opposite end of the screen is fixed to a screen header(32A), the shade header and the screen header being disposed in the continuous channel in a facing relationship(see Fig. 2B).
Gennissen lacks the encasement comprising four frame bars each with an inward-facing channel and connecting corner brackets that secure the four frame bars together with the inward-facing channels in alignment to define a continuous channel, with the frame assemblies therein.
Drohan discloses an encasement assembly discussed above.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the encasement of Gennissen with the encasement frame surrounding the frame assemblies, such as disclosed by Drohan or Drohan/Gennison(regarding corner brackets), with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have provided a unitary frame insertable into the window frame assembly to
ease in the use of the assembly given the intended use of the assembly and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 15, Gennissen and Drohan disclose the window frame assembly according to claim 14, wherein the shade header and the screen header(of Gennissen) each comprises a proximal connecting portion(36, 36a) in which the shade and the screen are secured, respectively(see para. [0064] and Fig. 2B), a distal portion(edge opposite 36/36A, see Fig. 2B), and a gripping portion disposed between the proximal connecting portion and the distal portion(beam portion between 36/36A and opposite side).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gennissen and Drohan, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Bacon(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2018/0370339; cited on PTO 892).
Gennisse and Drohan disclose the window frame assembly according to claim 15, wherein Gennissen discloses the screen/shade headers(32/32A) attached to the respective screen/shade(34, 34A, see Fig. 2B) but lacks the distal portions of the shade header and the screen header comprising a magnet.
Bacon discloses a shade assembly having a magnet (146, see Fig. 22) for securing the screen.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the screen and shade headers of Gennissen and Drohan with a magnet, such as disclosed by Bacon, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have secured the screen and shade with respect to one another to avoid movement of the headers given the intended use of the assembly and design requirements thereof.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gennissen and Drohan and Bacon, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Meyerink(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2021/0002958; cited on PTO 892).
Gennissen and Drohan and Bacon disclose the window frame assembly according to claims 16 and 21, wherein Gennissen disclose the screen/shade headers(32/32A) attached to the respective screen/shade(34, 34A, see Fig. 2B) but lacks the headers having a T shape and a U shape comprising the proximal connecting portion.
Meyerink discloses a screen/shade having a header(considered pull 19, see Fig. 7A) with a screen/shade(9) secured therein(see Fig. 7A), wherein a cross section of the header comprises a T-shape(inner support provides a T shape) and an inverted U- shape(receiving 24 of 9), the inverted U-shape defining the proximal connection portions of the shade header and the screen header(the term inward has been given no location limitation and considered met by the Meyerink reference).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previous claim objections and 112 claim rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is allowed.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No prior art of record shows a window assembly having a window frame of four frame member each with inwardly facing planar flanges defining an encasement channel, and an encasement selectively positionable in the channel, the encasement having interconnected frame bars each with an inward-facing channel to define a continuous channel, a shade assembly with a shade, and a screen assembly with a screen, the assemblies secured in the continuous channel adjacent opposite ends of the continuous channel, as in claim 24, nor any motivation to do so.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the Gennissen reference and the L-shaped bracket of the top and bottom frame members and the outermost flanges of the left and right side frame members of claim 1, as well as the planar flange, primary bracket and the connector channels of claim 7, have been carefully considered but not persuasive. The Gennissen reference shows frame members surrounding a window. While the frame members are identical, the claims do not provide any structural difference to define that the members of the top and bottom frame members and the members of the left and right side frame members have different structure. Applicant argues that the structure is “a divided architecture” and is arrived at “by piecing together disparate portions of Gennissen’s assembly”. The examiner contends that nothing in the claim defines this “divided architecture” and each of the elements of the claimed invention have been met by the Gennissen reference.
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention is a “layered cross sectional arrangement”. The invention may be different in structure than the Genissen reference but the claims do not set forth any limitations defining the arrangement. The Gennissen reference is considered to show each of the claim features and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s argument regarding the orientation of the L-bracket has been carefully considered but not persuasive. The portion of the Gennissen reference adjacent pane 10 is considered to extend “outward and away” with the vertical portion extending toward an outside of the window opening and therefore “away” meeting the claim limitation.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 3 and an “inward-facing peripheral” hook is not persuasive. Gennissen discloses a “hook” extending toward an inward portion of the assembly. The term “peripheral” lends no structural or locational limitation to the claim and the hook is considered “peripheral” of the screen 34 meeting the claim limitation.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 8 and the connector channels oriented perpendicular to one another is not persuasive. As shown on Fig. 1 of Gennissen, channels receiving elements 37 and 41 are perpendicular meeting the claim limitation.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 11 and the encasement of Gennissen is not persuasive. As discussed above, the encasement is considered the screen and shade in the inward-facing flanges 28 and flange parallel thereto meeting the claim limitation.
Applicant’s argument regarding the Gennissen reference lacking “inward-facing flanges” is disagreed with as the flange 28 and flange parallel thereto discussed above are directed inward and define a channel and are considered to meet the claim limitation.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims have been discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim objections and 112 rejections are moot given that the objections/rejections have been withdrawn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH A. AUBREY(STEPHAN) whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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 Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
BETH A. AUBREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Aubrey/
Prosecution Insights