DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges Claims 1 and 17 have been amended, Claims 9-14 and 16 have been cancelled and Claims 18-19 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections of Claims 1 and 17 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the Prior Art rejection of Claim 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Prior Art rejection of Claim 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to and amendments with respect to the Prior Art rejections of Claim 1 and its dependents have been considered but are moot because the amendments have necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection [see rejection below].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 15 and 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. On Line 38 of claim 1, the Examiner does not find support for the amendment that recites “minimize or eliminate cutting”.
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 1-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velux NPL Document # 3 in view of Velux NPL Document # 2.
Regarding claim 1, the Prior Art [Figures 1 and 4 of the Applicant’s Disclosure] teaches, a weatherproofing assembly [as defined by the description below] for use with a group of roof windows (Page 12, Line 31) comprising at least two roof windows (Page 12, Line 31) mounted adjacent to each other in a sloped roof structure (4) (Page 12, Line 3) having a slope direction (D) (Page 12, Line 4), where each of said at least two roof windows (Page 12, Line 31) comprises a frame (2) (Page 12, Line 1) comprising a top frame member (21) (Page 12, Line 11) and a bottom frame member (22) (Page 12, Lines 11-12) both extending horizontally in a mounted state (Page 12, Line 12) and two side frame members (23 and 24) (Page 12, Lines 12-13) extending in the slope direction (Page 12, Line 13) in the mounted state, said weatherproofing assembly comprising a first underroof collar (1) (Page 13, Line 4), a second underroof collar (1) (Page 13, Line 4), and a flashing assembly (5) (Page 12, Line 31), where each of said first underroof collar (1) and said second underroof collar (1) comprises a top collar member (11) (Page 11, Line 17) configured for extending along the top frame member (21) of a corresponding roof window, a bottom collar member (12) (Page 11, Lines 17-18) configured for extending along the bottom frame member (22) of a corresponding roof window, and two side collar members (13 and 14) (Page 11, Line 18) each configured for extending along a side frame member (23 and 24) of a corresponding roof window, said top (11), bottom (12) and side (13 and 14) collar members [inherently] being made from an underroof collar material, where said top (11), bottom (12) and side (13 and 14) collar members delimit a collar opening (Page 11, Line 19), and where each of said top (11) and bottom (12) collar members has a length direction extending along the collar opening (Page 11, Lines 20-21) and a width direction extending perpendicular to the length direction, away from the collar opening (Page 11, Lines 21-22), and where said flashing assembly (5) comprises at least one top flashing member (51) configured for extending along a top frame member (Page 13, Lines 6-7), at least one bottom flashing member (52) configured for extending along a bottom frame member (Page 13, Lines 7-8), at least two side flashing members (53 and 54) each configured for extending along a side frame member (Page 13, Lines 9-10), and at least one middle gutter flashing member (55) configured for extending between roof windows (Page 13, Lines 10-11), that the flashing assembly (5) comprises a first set of flashing members including one top flashing member (51), one bottom flashing member (52), and two side flashing members (53 and 54) corresponding to those used in the installation of a single roof window, and a second set of flashing members including one middle gutter flashing member (55) and two other flashing members being one top flashing member (51) and one bottom flashing member (52), wherein Velux teaches in Page 2 [annotated below], that at least one collar member (A) of the second underroof collar (B) comprises a reduced amount of collar material compared to a corresponding collar member (C) of the first underroof collar (D), wherein said first underroof collar (D) and said first set of flashing members being configured to be used with a standard single roof window [as it is a full flashing] and said second underroof collar (B) being specifically configured to be used with the said first underroof collar (A) [due to the undercut] when said first underroof collar (A) is used in connection with the at least two roof windows mounted adjacent to each other [as seen] to minimize or eliminate cutting [due to the undercut] of the underroof collar when used in connection with the at least two roof windows mounted adjacent to each other. Velux # 3 does not show the first set of flashing members contained in a first packaging element or the second set of flashing member contained in a second packaging element. However, Velux #2 shows on Page 52, a first set of flashing members [1 x EDW 0000 Single flashing kit] contained in a first packaging element [kit] including one top flashing member, one bottom flashing member and two side flashing members and a second set of flashing members [1 x EKW 0007] contained in a second packaging element [kit] including one middle gutter flashing member and two side flashing members. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Velox NPL documents and have a reasonable expectation of success because you can buy a kit for a single window and then a second kit to add the necessary members for an adjacent window.
PNG
media_image1.png
236
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Velux teaches on Page 2 [annotated above], where the at least one collar member (A) of the second underroof collar (B) comprising the reduced amount of collar material has a reduced width compared to the width of the corresponding collar member (C) of the first underroof collar (D).
Regarding claim 3, Velux teaches on Page 2 [annotated above], the side collar members (E) of the first underroof collar (D) are made with a surplus of material, and where the at least one collar member (A) of the second underroof collar (B) comprising a reduced amount of collar material is a side collar member (A) without such a surplus of material.
Regarding claim 4, Velux teaches at the bottom of Page 2, a set of windows, showing at least six windows therefore a third underroof collar and where the flashing assembly would further comprise a third set comprising one middle gutter flashing member and two other flashing members.
Regarding claim 5, Velux teaches at the bottom of Page 2, the two other flashing members of the third set would be a top flashing member and a bottom flashing member.
Regarding claim 6, Velux teaches at the bottom of Page 2, a set of windows, showing at least six windows therefore a fourth underroof collar and where the flashing assembly would comprise a fourth set contained in a fourth packaging element and comprising two middle gutter flashing members, one for use between roof windows mounted side by side and one for roof windows mounted one above another.
Regarding claim 7, Velux teaches at the bottom of Page 2, a set of windows, showing at least six windows therefore at least one of the first set of flashing members and the third set of flashing members comprises a drainage gutter.
Regarding claim 15, Velux teaches on Page 2 [annotated above], the surplus material of the side collar member (E) of the first underroof collar (D) is pleating.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velux NPL Document # 3 in view of Velux NPL Document # 2 in further view of European Patent # 4,089,034 to Tollak.
Regarding claim 8, Velux teaches a weatherproofing assembly with at least one drainage gutter but does not teach it is a telescopic drainage gutter. However, Tollak teaches in Figure 10, a drainage gutter (98) that is a telescopic drainage gutter (Paragraph 0037). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Velux with the telescoping gutter element of Tollak with a reasonable expectation of success because Tollak teaches a longer gutter element to be placed inside a smaller package and then expanded to the desire size at the construction site whether it be for extending along the top frame member of one roof window or along the top frame members of two roof windows.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The Prior Art does not anticipate or make obvious the second underroof collar is contained in the second packaging element.
Claims 18-19 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The Prior Art does not anticipate or make obvious the second underroof collar is contained in the second packaging element.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm EST.
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 Mattei can be reached at (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 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.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights