DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. The Restriction election received on 12/02/2025 has been acknowledged. Claim(s) 12 has been amended. Claims 1-20 are now pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 12/02/2025 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected invention Group III. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/02/2025.
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 of this title, 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) 1-11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20240157914 A with Derwent translation) in view of Slagter et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0084137).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a panel assembly (figure 1) comprising: a transparent panel (20); a frame (10) including an inner wall (figure 3) having a channel formed therein (channel surrounding the panel 20; figure 3) that receives at least a portion of the transparent panel (figure 3), the frame having a first frame jamb (10-left; figure 2), a second frame jamb opposite the first frame jamb (10-right; figure 2), and a frame sill (10-bottom; figure 2), the first frame jamb having a first base end and a first head end (upper and lower ends of 10-left), the second frame jamb having a second base end and a second head end (upper and lower ends of 10-right), the frame sill extending from the first base end to the second base end (figure 2), the first head end having a first slot (slot of 10-left, which receives the panel) and the second head end having a second slot (slot of 10-right, which receives the panel), the first slot and second slot forming openings for the channel (figure 3); and at least one sealant layer (40, 50) disposed between the frame and the transparent panel (figure 3), the at least one sealant layer forming a watertight seal between the fiberglass frame and the transparent panel (abstract).
Kim does not specifically disclose the frame is fiberglass.
Slagter et al. discloses a window installation (abstract) wherein the frame (53) is fiberglass (claim 3).
Therefore, from the teaching of Slagter et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transparent panel assembly of Kim such that the frame is fiberglass, as taught by Slagter et al., in order to provide a material that is stable and resistant to weather and does not specifically disclose absorb moisture, for improved longevity.
Regarding claim 2, Kim does not specifically disclose a depth of the frame sill is greater than a depth of the first frame jamb and the second frame jamb. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make a depth of the frame sill greater than a depth of the first frame jamb and the second frame jamb, since 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, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a mere change in size involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a depth of the frame sill greater than a depth of the first frame jamb and the second frame jamb, in order to provide a desired aesthetic for a more pleasing exterior appearance.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the transparent panel is made of an acrylic material (abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the at least one sealant layer includes a grout layer (50) and a silicone layer (40).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the grout layer includes a non-shrink grout material (abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the silicone layer is a moisture-tolerant adhesive (caulking; col. 3, lines 5-10; it is understood that caulking is a moisture-tolerant adhesive).
Regarding claim 7, Kim does not specifically disclose the transparent panel has a thickness of between about 0.5 inch and about 4 inches and a length of between about 5 feet and about 40 feet.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein the transparent panel has a thickness of between about 0.5 inch and about 4 inches and a length of between about 5 feet and about 40 feet, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that by discovering an optimum value of a result, the effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art [before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein the transparent panel has a thickness of between about 0.5 inch and about 4 inches and a length of between about 5 feet and about 40 feet, in order to provide enough strength to withstand water pressure and exterior forces to prevent failure of the material.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the channel in the fiberglass frame has a cross-section that is generally C-shaped. (figure 1)
Regarding claim 9, Kim does not specifically disclose the panel assembly is disposed in a shell, the shell having a groove formed therein that receives at least a portion of the fiberglass frame.
Slagter et al. discloses a window installation (abstract) wherein the panel assembly is disposed in a shell (casing 30-34), the shell having a groove formed therein (figure 5) that receives at least a portion of the fiberglass frame (figures 2 and 5).
Therefore, from the teaching of Slagter et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transparent panel assembly of Kim such that the panel assembly is disposed in a shell, the shell having a groove formed therein that receives at least a portion of the fiberglass frame, as taught by Slagter et al., in order to provide further stability in addition to a desired aesthetic for a more pleasing exterior appearance.
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches the transparent panel includes at least one edge (top edge) that is not fully enclosed by the fiberglass frame (figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches a portion of the fiberglass frame that is disposed opposite the frame sill is open such that a top edge of the transparent panel is not fully enclosed by the fiberglass frame (figure 1).
Claim(s) 12 and 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20240157914 A with Derwent translation) in view of Slagter et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0084137), in view of Bernhagen et al. (WO 2024196428 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kim does not specifically disclose a kit comprising: the panel assembly of claim 1; and at least one airbag.
Bernhagen et al. discloses a fenestration installation (abstract) including a kit (paragraph 263); and at least one airbag (paragraph 346).
Therefore, from the teaching of Bernhagen et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transparent panel assembly of Kim to be included in a kit and have at least one airbag, as taught by Bernhagen et al., in order to provide an set with all components including an airbag to facilitate leveling of the transparent panel assembly and for ease of installation.
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches at least one filler material (spacer 60).
Claim(s) 14 and 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20240157914 A with Derwent translation) in view of Slagter et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0084137), in view of Bernhagen et al. (WO 2024196428 A1), in view of Admiraal et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0115671).
Regarding claim 14, Kim does not specifically disclose the at least one filler material includes an epoxy material.
Admiraal et al. discloses a glass balustrade assembly (abstract) including an epoxy (paragraph 23).
Therefore, from the teaching of Admiraal et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transparent panel assembly of Kim to include at least one filler material includes an epoxy material, as taught by Admiraal et al., in order to provide a rigid cured material that is high-strength and moisture resistant for a more robust installation.
Regarding claim 15, Kim does not specifically disclose the at least one filler material further includes a foam material.
Bernhagen et al. discloses a fenestration installation (abstract) including at least one filler material further includes a foam material (paragraph 349).
Therefore, from the teaching of Bernhagen et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transparent panel assembly of Kim such that the at least one filler material further includes a foam material, as taught by Bernhagen et al., in order to provide a cured material that is moisture resistant to prevent infiltration and exfiltration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited patents listed on the included form PTO-892 further show the state of the art with respect to panel installations in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633