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 1-8, 17-20, 25, 27-29 and 31-32 are pending.
Claims 9-16, 21-24, 26 and 30 are cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/16/26 has been entered.
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) 1-4, 17-18, 20, 25 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al (“Edwards”) (US 2014/0260063) in view of Krochmal et al (“Krockmal”) (US 2004/0068942) and Tumlin et al (“Tumlin”) (US 2004/0083678).
Re claim 1, Edwards discloses a frame assembly (20, 30) comprising:
a first frame member (20) abuttable against (at 28, Fig. 19) a first side (of 12) of a window (12) and having first integrated connectors (50 and 60 on 20), wherein at least one of the first integrated connectors (50, 60) is a prong connector (70); and
a second frame member (30) abuttable against (Fig. 19, at 38) an opposing side (the other side of 12) of the window (12) and having second integrated connectors (50 and 60 on 30), wherein at least one of the second integrated connectors (50, 60) is a receptacle connector (68),
wherein the prong connector (70) is configured to mate with (Fig. 16-19) the receptacle connector (68) to secure the window (12) between the first frame member (20) and the second frame member (30),
but fails to disclose wherein at least one of the first integrated connectors is integrally formed as one piece with the first frame member or at least one of the second integrated connectors is integrally formed as one piece with the second frame member, and wherein a side of the receptacle connector forms an opening sized to provide access to and aligned with interference features formed in the receptacle connector, the opening configured to facilitate passage of a slide into and out of the receptacle connector in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of the receptacle connector during a molding process.
However, Krochmal discloses wherein at least one of the first integrated connectors (20) is integrally formed as one piece ([0027]) with the first frame member (16) or at least one of the second integrated connectors (22) is integrally formed as one piece ([0030]) with the second frame member (14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame assembly of Edwards wherein at least one of the first integrated connectors is integrally formed as one piece with the first frame member or at least one of the second integrated connectors is integrally formed as one piece with the second frame member as disclosed by Krochmal in order to reduce assembly time by providing one-piece fastening with each frame assembly.
In addition, Tumlin discloses wherein a side (side of 48) of the receptacle connector (48) forms an opening (see examiner comments) sized to provide access to (Fig. 3) and aligned with (Fig. 3) interference features (56) formed in the receptacle connector (48), the opening (see examiner comments) configured to facilitate passage of a slide into and out of the receptacle connector in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of the receptacle connector during a molding process (the opening identified in the examiner comments is capable of facilitating passage of a slide into and out of the receptacle connector in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of the receptacle connector during a molding process, as this language is considered intended use).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame assembly of Edwards wherein a side of the receptacle connector forms an opening sized to provide access to and aligned with interference features formed in the receptacle connector, the opening configured to facilitate passage of a slide into and out of the receptacle connector in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of the receptacle connector during a molding process as disclosed by Tumlin in order to facilitate alignment, and to allow for complementary locking surfaces to have a greater resistance to relative movement ([0024]).
Re claim 2, Edwards as modified discloses the frame assembly of claim 1, wherein, at least one of the first integrated connectors (50 and 60 on 20) also comprises a receptacle connector (68), and at least one of the second integrated connectors (50 and 60 on 30) also comprises a prong connector (70).
Re claim 3, Edwards as modified discloses the frame assembly of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first integrated connectors (50 and 60 on 20) is configured to snap into (Title; the snapping at 68/70 on each element 20 and 30) at least one of the second integrated connectors (50 and 60 on 30).
Re claim 4, Edwards as modified discloses the frame assembly of claim 1, wherein the prong connector (70) extends from an inner side (inner side of 20 at 28, see Fig. 17) of the first frame member (20) and the receptacle connector (68) extends from an inner side (inner side of 30 at 38, see Fig. 17) of the second frame member (30).
Re claim 17, Edwards discloses a method (Fig. 15-19) of securing a window (12) in a movable barrier (10), comprising:
positioning (Fig. 3 and Fig. 15-19 showing positioning) an inner side (inner side of 20 at 28 in Fig. 19) of a first frame member (20) having first integrated connectors (50 and 60 on 20) against an exterior side (exterior side of 11) of the movable barrier (11);
abutting (Fig. 19) a side of a window (12) against (Fig. 19) the inner side (inner side of 20 at 28) of the first frame member (20);
positioning (Fig. 3 and Fig. 15-19 showing positioning) an inner side (inner side of 30 at 38) of a second frame member (30) having second integrated connectors (50 and 60 on 30) against an interior side (inner side of 11) of the movable barrier (11);
abutting (Fig. 19) the inner side (inner side of 30 at 38) of the second frame member (30) against an opposing side (of 12) of the window (12); and
mating (Fig. 15-19) the second integrated connectors (50 and 60 on 30) with the first integrated connectors (50 and 60 on 20) to secure the window (12) in the movable barrier (10) between the first frame member (20) and the second frame member (30),
but fails to disclose wherein at least one of the first integrated connectors is integrally formed as one piece with the first frame member or at least one of the second integrated connectors is integrally formed as one piece with the second frame member, and wherein a side of the receptacle connector forms an opening sized to provide access to and aligned with interference features formed in the receptacle connector, the opening configured to facilitate passage of a slide into and out of the receptacle connector in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of the receptacle connector during a molding process.
However, Krochmal discloses wherein at least one of the first integrated connectors (20) is integrally formed as one piece ([0027]) with the first frame member (16) or at least one of the second integrated connectors (22) is integrally formed as one piece ([0030]) with the second frame member (14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Edwards wherein at least one of the first integrated connectors is integrally formed as one piece with the first frame member or at least one of the second integrated connectors is integrally formed as one piece with the second frame member as disclosed by Krochmal in order to reduce assembly time by providing one-piece fastening with each frame assembly.
In addition, Tumlin discloses wherein a side (side of 48) of the receptacle connector (48) forms an opening (see examiner comments) sized to provide access to (Fig. 3) and aligned with (Fig. 3) interference features (56) formed in the receptacle connector (48), the opening (see examiner comments) configured to facilitate passage of a slide into and out of the receptacle connector in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of the receptacle connector during a molding process (the opening identified in the examiner comments is capable of facilitating passage of a slide into and out of the receptacle connector in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of the receptacle connector during a molding process, as this language is considered intended use).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Edwards wherein a side of the receptacle connector forms an opening sized to provide access to and aligned with interference features formed in the receptacle connector, the opening configured to facilitate passage of a slide into and out of the receptacle connector in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of the receptacle connector during a molding process as disclosed by Tumlin in order to facilitate alignment, and to allow for complementary locking surfaces to have a greater resistance to relative movement ([0024]).
Re claim 18, Edwards as modified discloses the method of claim 17, wherein mating (Fig. 15-19) the second integrated connectors (50 and 60 on 30) with the first integrated connectors (50 and 60 on 20) includes inserting (Fig. 15-19) a shaft (70) of one of the second integrated connectors (50 and 60 on 30) into a socket (68) of one of the first integrated connectors (50 and 60 on 20).
Re claim 20, Edwards as modified discloses the method of claim 17, wherein mating (Fig. 15-19) the second integrated connectors (50 and 60 on 30) with the first integrated connectors (50 and 60 on 20) includes snapping (Title; the snapping at 68/70 on each element 20 and 30) the first (50 and 60 on 20) and second integrated connectors (50 and 60 on 30) together (Fig. 15-19).
Re claim 25, Edwards as modified discloses the frame assembly of claim 1, wherein at least one of: (i) the first frame member (16) together with the at least one of the first integrated connectors (20) integrally formed as one piece ([0027]) with the first frame member (16) or (ii) the second frame member (14) together with the at least one of the second integrated connectors (22) integrally formed as one piece ([0030]) with the second frame member (14), is molded as one piece ([0027], [0030]).
Re claim 29, Edwards as modified discloses the method of claim 17, wherein at least one of: (i) the first frame member (16) together with the at least one of the first integrated connectors (20) integrally formed as one piece ([0027]) with the first frame member (16) or (ii) the second frame member (14) together with the at least one of the second integrated connectors (22) integrally formed as one piece ([0030]) with the second frame member (14), is molded as one piece ([0027], [0030]).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al (“Edwards”) (US 2014/0260063) in view of Krochmal et al (“Krochmal”) (US 2004/0068942), Tumlin et al (“Tumlin”) (US 2004/0083678) and Phipps (US 2012/0055106).
Re claim 5, Edwards as modified discloses the frame assembly of claim 1, wherein the prong connector (70) includes a shaft (shaft of 70) having first ribs (96) and the receptacle connector (68) includes a socket (83), but fails to disclose the socket having second ribs, the first ribs being sized to interfere with the second ribs.
However, Phipps discloses the socket (50) having second ribs (Fig. 3, [0030]), the first ribs (on 28) being sized to interfere with (Fig. 2) the second ribs (Fig. 3, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame assembly of Edwards with the socket having second ribs, the first ribs being sized to interfere with the second ribs as disclosed by Phipps in order to provide a stronger connection, and to form a secure connection therebetween ([0030]).
Re claim 6, Edwards as modified discloses the frame assembly of claim 5, Phipps discloses wherein inserting (Fig. 2) the shaft (28) into the socket (50) to secure the window (14) between (per the above, with respect to Edwards) the first frame member (18) and the second frame member (22) meshes (Fig. 2) the first (on 28) and second ribs (in 50) to prevent the prong connector (28) from retracting from (Fig. 2) the receptacle connector (50).
Re claim 7, Edwards as modified discloses the frame assembly of claim 6, Phipps discloses wherein inserting the shaft (28) farther into (Fig. 2) the socket (50) increases a number (Fig. 2) of first ribs (on 28) meshed with (Fig. 2) the second ribs (in 50) to strengthen a connection between (Fig. 2) the first frame member (18) and the second frame member (22).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al (“Edwards”) (US 2014/0260063) in view of Krochmal et al (“Krochmal”) (US 2004/0068942), Phipps (US 2012/0055106), Tumlin et al (“Tumlin”) (US 2004/0083678) and Copland (US 2006/0198124).
Re claim 8, Edwards as modified discloses the frame assembly of claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein the shaft of the prong connector defines a hole extending along a longitudinal axis of the shaft, the hole configured to receive a fastener extending through the first frame member and into the second frame member, the fastener increasing a strength of a connection between the first frame member and the second frame member.
However, Copland discloses wherein the shaft (50) of the prong connector (54) defines a hole (within 50) extending along a longitudinal axis (of 50) of the shaft (50), the hole (within 50) configured to receive a fastener (58) extending through the first frame member (10) and into the second frame member 912), the fastener (58) increasing a strength of a connection between (Fig. 2) the first frame member (10) and the second frame member (12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame assembly of Edwards wherein the shaft of the prong connector defines a hole extending along a longitudinal axis of the shaft, the hole configured to receive a fastener extending through the first frame member and into the second frame member, the fastener increasing a strength of a connection between the first frame member and the second frame member as disclosed by Copland in order to provide locking and to frictionally and mechanically connect the members together ([0025]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al (“Edwards”) (US 2014/0260063) in view of Krochmal et al (“Krochmal”) (US 2004/0068942), Tumlin et al (“Tumlin”) (US 2004/0083678) and Copland (US 2006/0198124).
Re claim 19, Edwards as modified discloses the method of claim 18, but fails to disclose further comprising inserting a fastener through the second frame member, through a hole defined by the shaft of one of the second integrated connectors, and into the first frame member.
However, Copland discloses further comprising inserting (Fig. 2 showing 58 inserted) a fastener (58) through the second frame member (12), through a hole (within 50) defined by the shaft (50) of one of the second integrated connectors (54), and into the first frame member (10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Edwards further comprising inserting a fastener through the second frame member, through a hole defined by the shaft of one of the second integrated connectors, and into the first frame member as disclosed by Copland in order to provide locking and to frictionally and mechanically connect the members together ([0025]).
Claim(s) 28 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al (“Edwards”) (US 2014/0260063) in view of Krochmal et al (“Krochmal”) (US 2004/0068942), Tumlin et al (“Tumlin”) (US 2004/0083678) and Boer (US 2017/0167185).
Re claim 28, Edwards as modified discloses the frame assembly of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the prong connector comprises a first arm and a second arm forming a slit therebetween.
However, Boer discloses wherein the prong connector (102) comprises a first arm (92) and a second arm (94) forming a slit (88) therebetween (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame assembly of Edwards wherein the prong connector comprises a first arm and a second arm forming a slit therebetween as disclosed by Boer in order to provide or aid in providing a one-way spring biased snap-fit connection ([0050]).
Re claim 32, Edwards as modified discloses the method of claim 17, but fails to disclose wherein the prong connector comprises a first arm and a second arm forming a slit therebetween.
However, Boer discloses wherein the prong connector (102) comprises a first arm (92) and a second arm (94) forming a slit (88) therebetween (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame assembly of Edwards wherein the prong connector comprises a first arm and a second arm forming a slit therebetween as disclosed by Boer in order to provide or aid in providing a one-way spring biased snap-fit connection ([0050]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27 and 31 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.
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
397
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the amended language of the independent claims requiring that the opening is sized to provide access and aligned with interference features formed in the receptacle connect. This language is addressed in view of the newly relied upon Tumlin above. It is noted, first, that “opening” is defined by Merriam-Webster as, “something that is open,” and defines “open” as “having no enclosing or confining barrier.” Thus, the open half of prong 48 of Tumlin constitutes an opening. Interpretation of Tumlin may be overcome, for example, by claiming the particular location of the opening of the present invention. The cited “opening” of Tumlin is on a distal end of the prong, whereas the present invention’s opening is defined on a proximal end of the prong proximate the frame to which it is connected. Applicant contends that the opening is structural and not directed to intended use. The cited references define the claimed opening. The manner of use of said opening is directed to the intended use thereof, as cited above. The cited opening of Tumlin is certainly capable of facilitating passage of a slide, as it is completely open and would allow such a tool to be inserted. Applicant’s arguments concerning Badger in this regard are moot as Badger is not relied upon disclosing the feature.
Next, Applicant argues that the cited motivation for combining Badger with Edwards is insufficient. Badger is no longer relied upon in the above rejection rendering these arguments moot.
Applicant’s arguments concerning claims 27 and 31 are moot in view of the indication of allowable subject matter above.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the remaining claims are further addressed by the above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights