DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the correct dependency should be from “claim 4”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-13 are 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.
5. Claim 1 recites limitations towards “a temporary enclosure system removably installable within the entryway” that indicates that the temporary enclosure system is not installed and the limitation towards “after removing the temporary enclosure system from the entryway” renders the claim unclear and confusing because it’s removing a system that has not been installed. Further, the claim is an apparatus claim and the limitations “after removing the temporary enclosure system from the entryway” are method steps. The claim will be examined as best understood.
6. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first and second longitudinal slots" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shikoku (WO 2017188241). Shikoku discloses an enclosure system for a building, comprising:
an entryway 1 for the building defined by opposing left and right frame-side jambs 11 and a frame-side transom 27 extending between the left and right frame-side jambs (Fig 1, 2);
a left door-side jamb 26 attachable to the left frame-side jamb 11 to form an assembled left jamb; a right door-side jamb 26 attachable to the right frame-side jamb 11 to form an assembled right jamb (Fig 1, 2);
a door-side transom attachable to the frame-side transom 27 to form an assembled transom (annotated Fig 7); and
one or more doors hung within the entryway and extending laterally between the assembled left and right jambs and vertically to the assembled transom (Fig 1, 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 10, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shikoku (WO 2017/188241) in view of Zahner (EP 0278364)
Regarding claim 1 as best understood, Shikoku discloses an enclosure system for a building, comprising:
an entryway 1 for the building defined by opposing left and right frame-side jambs 11 and a frame-side transom 27 extending between the left and right frame-side jambs (Fig 1, 2, 7);
a left door-side jamb 26 attachable to the left frame-side jamb 11 to form an assembled left jamb, a right door-side jamb 26 attachable to the right frame-side jamb 11 to form an assembled right jamb, and a door-side transom attachable to the frame-side transom 27 to form an assembled transom (Fig 1, 2, annotated Fig 7); and
one or more doors hung within the entryway and extending laterally between the assembled left and right jambs and vertically to the assembled transom (Fig 1).
Shikoku does not disclose a temporary enclosure system removably installable within the entryway. However, Zahner discloses a temporary enclosure system capable of being removably installable within the entryway (Fig 1, 5, 6). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the enclosure system of Shikoku to include a temporary enclosure system as taught by Zahner, in order to enclose the door opening to protect it against plaster or paint. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The claim is a product by process claim and the enclosure system does not depend on the steps of constructing it. The product-by-process limitation " after removing the temporary enclosure system from the entryway" is a method step in an apparatus claim that would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the claimed enclosure system.
PNG
media_image1.png
462
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Shikoku discloses a left sidelight section 10L, the left frame-side jamb 11 forming part of the left sidelight section (Fig 1, 2);
a right sidelight section 10R, the right frame-side jamb 11 forming part of the right sidelight section; and
a header section 4 extending between the left and right sidelight sections, the frame-side transom 27 forming part of the header section (Fig 1, 2).
Regarding claim 3, Zahner further discloses the temporary enclosure system includes: a left temporary jamb piece 4 capable of being removably coupled to the left frame-side jamb and adapted to receive and secure a first lateral side of one or more temporary panels 14 (Fig 1, 5, 6);
a right temporary jamb piece 4 capable of being removably coupled to the right frame-side jamb and adapted to receive and secure a second lateral side of the one or more temporary panels 14, but does not disclose a temporary header piece removably coupled to the frame-side transom and adapted to receive and secure an upper end of the one or more temporary panels. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the temporary enclosure system to include a temporary header piece since such a modification would have involved a mere duplication of parts and it would better secure the temporary panels. Such a modification, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Shikoku modified by Zahner discloses as discussed in claim 3, but does not disclose the one or more temporary panels are notched to accommodate a shape of the left and right temporary jamb pieces and the temporary header piece. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the shape of the temporary panels and the left and right temporary jamb pieces and the temporary header piece as claimed since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the components according to the desired type of connection. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Such a modification, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Zahner further discloses a) the left temporary jamb piece 4, b) the right temporary jamb piece 4, and c) the modified temporary header piece each provide a first mating feature 7, 8 that facilitate removable attachment (Fig 2), but does not disclose the left frame-side jamb, the right frame-side jamb and the frame-side transom each provide a second mating feature that would facilitate removable attachment to the corresponding left temporary jamb piece, right temporary jamb piece and the modified temporary header piece in order to secure the pieces together. However, it would have been an obvious engineering design to have the left frame-side jamb, the right frame-side jamb and the frame-side transom each provide a second mating feature that would facilitate removable attachment to the corresponding left temporary jamb piece, right temporary jamb piece and the modified temporary header piece in order to secure the pieces together. Such a modification, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, Shikoku discloses the one or more doors comprise a left door mounted to the assembled left jamb, and a right door rotatably mounted to the assembled right jamb (Fig 1, 2), but does not disclose the left and right door rotatably mounted to the left and right jambs. However, it would have been an obvious engineering design to have the left and right door rotatably mounted to the left and right jambs according to the desire type of door to installed in the entryway.
Regarding claim 14, Shikoku discloses a method of constructing an enclosure system for a building, comprising:
constructing an entryway 1 for the building, the entryway being defined by opposing left and right frame-side jambs 11 and a frame-side transom 27 extending between the left and right frame-side jambs (Fig 1, 2);
attaching a left door-side jamb 26 to the left frame-side jamb 11 to form an assembled left jamb; attaching a right door-side jamb 26 to the right frame-side jamb 11 to form an assembled right jamb; attaching a door-side transom to the frame-side transom 27 to form an assembled transom (Fig 1, 2, annotated Fig 7); and
hanging one or more doors within the entryway, the one or more doors extending laterally between the assembled left and right jambs and vertically to the assembled transom (Fig 1).
Shikoku does not disclose the step of installing a temporary enclosure system within the entryway and thereby securing the building; removing the temporary enclosure system from the entryway. However, Zahner discloses the steps of installing a temporary enclosure system within an opening and thereby securing the building; removing the temporary enclosure system from the opening (Fig 1, 5, 6). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Shikoku to include the step of installing and removing a temporary enclosure system as taught by Zahner, in order to enclose the door opening to protect it against plaster or paint. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, Shikoku discloses the step of constructing the entryway for the building comprises: assembling a left sidelight section 10L, the left frame-side jamb 11 forming part of the left sidelight section; assembling a right sidelight section 10R, the right frame-side jamb 11 forming part of the right sidelight section; and assembling a header section 4 extending between the left and right sidelight sections, the frame-side transom 27 forming part of the header section (Fig 1, 2).
Regarding claim 16, Shikoku discloses the step of installing the temporary enclosure is followed by glazing the left and right sidelight sections (Fig 1), but does not disclose the step of glazing the header section. However, it would have been an obvious engineering design to have the header section including glass according to the desired ornamental appearance of the entryway.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 4-8, 11, 17-21 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.
14. Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
15. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art alone or in obvious combination absent hindsight discloses applicant’s invention of an enclosure system including an entryway having left and right frame side jambs, a frame side transom, a temporary enclosure, a left door side jamb, a right door side jamb, a door side transom, one or more doors having the structural limitations and interconnectable in the manner as recited in the claims. There is no motivation to modify the prior art of record to reach applicants claimed invention, to the contrary as such a modification would alter the inventive structure and manner in which the prior art is intended to operate.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-8281. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5PM MONDAY-FRIDAY.
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.
/ADRIANA FIGUEROA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
02/20/2026