DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 and 24-37 are pending.
Claims 12-23 are cancelled.
Claims 24-36 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-11 and 37 are addressed on the merits herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 37 is 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.
Re claim 37, claim 37 recites, “the segment wall” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the segment walls” and will be interpreted as such.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Smerud et al (“Smerud”) (US 2006/0174550).
At the outset, it is noted that the term “composite lineal segment” is being interpreted as similar to, “comprised of at least two lineal segments.” It is believed that this is at least one possible interpretation of the term based on the discussion during the 2/4/26 interview.
Re claim 1, Smerud discloses a fenestration assembly (10) comprising:
a plurality of lineal segments (Fig. 4, 10, 11), each of the lineal segments (10, 11) extending between first and second ends (ends of each of 10, 11), one or more of the lineal segments (10) of the plurality of lineal segments (10, 11) is a composite lineal segment (Fig. 16 showing 10 comprised of 22, 23, 24), and the composite lineal segment (10) includes:
a first component lineal segment (24);
a second component lineal segment (24 on the other side); and
wherein the first (24) and second component lineal segments (24) are coupled at an assembly joint (22, 23) in an assembled configuration (Fig. 16),
wherein the composite lineal segment (10) having the first and second component lineal segments (24, 24) in the assembly configuration (Fig. 16) includes a straight configuration (Fig. 16) and a curved configuration (Fig. 17; [0043]):
in the straight configuration (Fig. 16) the first and second component lineal segments (24) and the assembly joint (22, 23) are straight (Fig. 16; [0042]); and
in the curved configuration (Fig. 17) the first and second component lineal segments (24) and the assembly joint (22, 23) are curved (Fig. 17; [0043]).
Re claim 5, Smerud discloses the fenestration assembly of claim 1, wherein the composite lineal segment (10) including the first and second component lineal segments (24) in the assembled configuration (Fig. 16) is configured for imparting of the curved configuration (Fig. 17; [0042]-[0043]).
It should further be noted that the language “for imparting of the curved configuration” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 8, Smerud discloses the fenestration assembly of claim 1, wherein the assembly joint (22, 23) includes: a joint socket (25) with the first component lineal segment (24); and a locking feature (the dovetail of 24 inserted into 25) with the second component lineal segment (24), the locking feature (the dovetail of 24 inserted into 25) received in (Fig. 16; [0042]) the joint socket (25).
Re claim 11, Smerud discloses the fenestration assembly of claim 1, comprising one or more of a fenestration frame ([0001] disclosing a window/door jamb) or a sash, and one or both of the fenestration frame ([0001] disclosing a window/door jamb) or the sash includes the plurality of lineal segments (24, 24) coupled at the respective first and second ends (Fig. 4, Fig. 16).
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(s) 2-3, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smerud et al (“Smerud”) (US 2006/0174550) in view of Haunes (US 9,470,037).
Re claim 2, Smerud discloses the fenestration assembly of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein at least one of the first or second component lineal segments includes a foam brace within a segment channel of the first or second component lineal segments.
However, Haunes discloses wherein at least one of the first (51) or second component lineal segments (53) includes a foam brace (Col 5 lines 51-55) within a segment channel (within 51/53) of the first (51) or second component lineal segments (53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration assembly of Smerud wherein at least one of the first or second component lineal segments includes a foam brace within a segment channel of the first or second component lineal segments as disclosed by Haunes in order insulate and improve efficiency by controlling convection and radiation there within (Col 5 lines 51-55).
Re claim 3, Smerud as modified discloses the fenestration assembly of claim 2, Haunes discloses wherein at least one of the first or second component lineal segments (51/53) include segment walls (walls of 51/53, see Fig. 4) around the segment channel (the channel within 51/53); and wherein the foam brace (Col 5 lines 51-55) is configured to support (Fig. 4) the segment walls (walls of 51/53).
Re claim 37, Smerud as modified discloses the fenestration assembly of claim 3, wherein the foam brace (Haunes: Col 5 lines 51-55) configured to support the segment walls (Haunes: walls of 51/53) includes supporting the segment wall (Haunes: walls of 51/53) during imparting of the curved configuration (Smerud: Fig. 17, [0043]; because Haunes discloses the foam brace, and because Smerud discloses imparting the curved configuration of all components per [0042]-[0043] and Fig. 16-17, it follows that the foam brace of Smerud as modified by Haunes would also provide support during imparting of the curved configuration).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smerud et al (“Smerud”) (US 2006/0174550) in view of Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2022/0055270).
Re claim 4, Smerud discloses the fenestration assembly of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein at least one of the first or second component lineal segments includes a polymer brace within a segment channel of the first or second component lineal segments.
However, Johnson discloses wherein at least one of the first (112) or second component lineal segments (114) includes a polymer brace ([0262, 3404) within a segment channel (within 112/114) of the first (114) or second component lineal segments (114).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration assembly of Smerud wherein at least one of the first or second component lineal segments includes a foam polymer brace within a segment channel of the first or second component lineal segments as disclosed by Johnson in order insulate and improve efficiency.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smerud et al (“Smerud”) (US 2006/0174550).
Re claim 6, Smerud discloses the fenestration assembly of claim 1, wherein the first component lineal segment (24) includes one or more of a first material or a first finish ([0037]) and the second component lineal segment (24) includes one or more of a second material or a second finish ([0037]), and appears to imply that these can be different materials ([0037] stating “combinations there”), but fails to make explicit that one or more of the first or second materials or the first or second finishes are different.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration assembly of Smerud with one or more of the first or second materials or the first or second finishes are different in order to provide a unique, desired aesthetic appeal. It has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 (I).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smerud et al (“Smerud”) (US 2006/0174550) in view of Hortrich (US 2012/0028027).
Re claim 7, Smerud as modified discloses the fenestration assembly of claim 6, wherein the first component lineal segment (24) is an interior facing component lineal segment (Fig. 16) having an aesthetic finish ([0037]); and the second component lineal segment (another 24) is an exterior facing component lineal segment (Fig. 16) but fails to disclose the second component lineal segment with at least an ultraviolet resistant material ([0022]).
However, Hortrich discloses the second component lineal segment (30) with at least an ultraviolet resistant material ([0022]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration assembly of Smerud wherein the first component lineal segment is an interior facing component lineal segment having an aesthetic finish; and the second component lineal segment is an exterior facing component lineal segment having at least an ultraviolet resistant material as disclosed by Hortrich in order to increase aesthetic appeal of the assembly. It has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 (I).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smerud et al (“Smerud”) (US 2006/0174550) in view of Tomlin (GB2252998).
Re claim 9, Smerud as modified discloses the fenestration assembly of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of lineal segments include the composite lineal segment with the curved configuration and an additional lineal segment, the composite lineal segment and the additional lineal segment are joined at a corner with an articulating corner linkage, the articulating corner linkage includes: a first linkage member; a second linkage member; and an adjustable joint interconnecting the first and second linkage members, the first and second linkage members are rotatable relative to each other at the adjustable joint.
However, Tomlin discloses wherein the plurality of lineal segments (3) include the composite lineal segment (one element 3) with the curved configuration (as modified above) and an additional lineal segment (another element 3), the composite lineal segment (3) and the additional lineal segment (3) are joined at a corner (Fig. 2) with an articulating (via 16) corner linkage (12), the articulating corner linkage (12) includes: a first linkage member (one element 12); a second linkage member (another element 12); and an adjustable joint (16) interconnecting the first and second linkage members (12), the first and second linkage members (12) are rotatable relative to each other (16 being a pivot pin) at the adjustable joint (16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration assembly of Smerud wherein the plurality of lineal segments include the composite lineal segment with the curved configuration and an additional lineal segment, the composite lineal segment and the additional lineal segment are joined at a corner with an articulating corner linkage, the articulating corner linkage includes: a first linkage member; a second linkage member; and an adjustable joint interconnecting the first and second linkage members, the first and second linkage members are rotatable relative to each other at the adjustable joint as disclosed by Tomlin in order to allow for minor adjustments for fitting within a rough opening.
Re claim 10, Smerud as modified discloses the fenestration assembly of claim 9, Tomlin discloses 9, wherein the corner (Fig. 2) includes a corner angle (the langue of Fig. 2), and the first and second linkage members (12) of the articulating corner linkage (12) have a linkage angle (Fig. 2) at the adjustable joint (12, via 16) matching the corner angle (Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot as they do not apply to any combination of the references relied upon in the above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892; each reference therein discloses “bending” to impart a curved configuration.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635