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 1-13, 15-20 are pending.
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) 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budzinski (US 2003/0217523) in view of Riegelman (US 6,341,465) and Luvison (US 2019/0093416).
Re claim 1, Budzinski discloses a mulling system (Fig. 3) for mulling together a first fenestration unit (14) and a second fenestration unit (16) at a mull joint (between 14 and 16) to define a fenestration assembly (10), the first fenestration unit (14) and the second fenestration unit (16) cooperatively defining a first side (Fig. 1-3) of the fenestration assembly (10) and a second side (Fig. 1-3) of the fenestration assembly (10) that faces opposite the first side (Fig. 1-3), the mulling system (Fig. 3) comprising:
a second frame member (24 on 16) of the second fenestration unit (16);
a stiffener member (28/30) that is layered between one of the pair of first frame members (24 on 14) of the first fenestration unit (14) and the second frame member (24 on 16), the stiffener member (28/30) abutting (Fig. 3) the one of the pair of first frame members (24 on 14) and the second frame member (24 on 16);
a cover member (82) that attaches on the first side (Fig. 3) to at least partly conceal (Fig. 3) the mull joint (between 14 and 16) on the first side (Fig. 3); and
a fastener (56; notably, the language does not require only one fastener, nor does it require that fastener passes through all of the below) that attaches the first corner member (as modified below), the one of the pair of first frame members (24 on 14), the stiffener member (28/30), and the second frame member (24 on 16),
but fails to disclose a first corner member that attaches together a pair of first frame members of the first fenestration unit at a first corner arrangement thereof with a fastener, and the cover member that attaches to the stiffener member.
However, Riegelman discloses a first corner member (16) that attaches together a pair of first frame members (84) of the first fenestration unit (Fig. 11) at a first corner arrangement (at 16) thereof with a fastener (60, 64, 68).
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 mulling system of Budzinski with a first corner member that attaches together a pair of first frame members of the first fenestration unit at a first corner arrangement thereof with a fastener as disclosed by Riegelman in order to interconnect the frame elements in a rigid manner preventing twisting thereof, maintaining the angle of connection (Col 1 lines 54-57).
In addition, Luvison discloses a cover member (46) that attaches to (Fig. 4) the stiffener member (31).
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 mulling system of Budzinski with a cover member that attaches to the stiffener member (instead of the to the first and second window frames, per Budzinski) as disclosed by Luvison in order to allow for more play between the cover member and the frames, as when the cover member is attached to the frames, over time during shifting and settling, the cover member is more likely to crack and fail, whereas when attached to the stiffener with a degree of play between the frames, the cover member will not be subject to such loads due to shifting and settling.
Re claim 2, Budzinski as modified discloses the mulling system of claim 1, and Riegelman discloses a plurality of corners (Col 1 lines 6-11), but fails to disclose further comprising a second corner member that attaches together the second frame member and another second frame member of the second fenestration unit at a second corner arrangement thereof; the fastener attaching the first corner member, the one of the pair of the first frame members, the stiffener member, the second frame member, and the second corner member.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mulling system of Budzinski further comprising a second corner member that attaches together the second frame member and another second frame member of the second fenestration unit at a second corner arrangement thereof; the fastener attaching the first corner member, the one of the pair of the first frame members, the stiffener member, the second frame member, and the second corner member in order to interconnect additional frame elements in a rigid manner preventing twisting thereof, maintaining the angle of connection (Col 1 lines 54-57). Further, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Re claim 4, Budzinski as modified discloses the mulling system of claim 1, wherein the mull joint (between 14 and 16) is a first mull joint (Fig. 3), wherein the mulling system (10) includes a second mull joint ([0038] disclosing more than two windows), but fails to disclose the second mull joint is aligned with the first mull joint; and wherein the stiffener member extends continuously between the first mull joint and the second mull joint.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mulling system of Budzinski such that the second mull joint is aligned with the first mull joint; and wherein the stiffener member extends continuously between the first mull joint and the second mull joint in order to provide high structural rigidity and concealment, and compatibility with numerous window designs ([0001]), of the mull joint of the fist and second mull joints at the same time.
Re claim 6, Budzinski as modified discloses the mulling system of claim 1, wherein the cover member (82) is a first cover member (82) and further comprising a second cover member (82 on the other side) that attaches to the stiffener member (28/30) on the second side (Fig. 3) to at least partly conceal (Fig. 3) the mull joint (between 14 and 16) on the second side (Fig. 3).
Re claim 9, Budzinski as modified discloses the mulling system of claim 1, wherein the cover member (82) defines a first width (Fig. 3) measured across the mull joint (between 14 and 16); wherein the cover member (82) is a first cover member (82) and further comprising a second cover member (the other 82) that attaches to the stiffener member (28/30) on the second side (Fig. 3) to at least partly conceal (Fig. 3) the mull joint (between 14 and 16) on the second side (Fig. 3); wherein the second cover member (the other 82) defines a second width (Fig. 3) measured across the mull joint (between 14 and 16); wherein the one of the pair of first frame members (24 on 14) has a first inner side facing (left side of 24 on 14) away from the mull joint (between 14 and 16) and the second frame member (24 on 16) has a second inner side (right side of 24 on 16) facing away from the mull joint (between 14 and 16) in a direction opposite the first inner side (left side of 24 on 14); wherein the one of the pair of first frame members (24 on 16) and the second frame member (24 on 16) cooperatively define a third width (Fig. 3) measured across the mull joint (between 14 and 16) from the first inner side (left side of 24 on 14) to the second inner side (right side of 24 on 16); but fails to disclose wherein the first width and the second width are at least equal to the third width.
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 mulling system of Budzinski wherein the first width and the second width are at least equal to the third width (such as by reducing the size / widths of 14 and 16) in order to reduce the size of 14 and 16, utilizing less material, and providing a smaller frame/mull joint. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 19, Budzinski discloses a method (Fig. 1-3) of mulling together a first fenestration unit (14) and a second fenestration unit (16) at a mull joint (between 14 and 16) to define a fenestration assembly (10), the fenestration assembly (10) including a first side (one side thereof) and a second side (another side thereof) that are cooperatively defined by the first fenestration unit (14) and the second fenestration unit (16), the method comprising:
attaching together (Fig. 3 showing attachment), a pair of first frame members (24 on 14, 18) of the first fenestration unit (14);
providing (Fig. 3 showing 24 on 16 provided) a second frame member (24 on 16) of the second fenestration unit (16);
layering (Fig. 3 showing 28/30 layered) a stiffener member (28/30) between one of the pair of first frame members (24 on 14) of the first fenestration unit (14) and the second frame member (24 on 16), the stiffener member (28/30) abutting (Fig. 3) the one of the pair of first frame members (24 on 14) and the second frame member (24on 14);
attaching (Fig. 3 showing 82 attached) a cover member (82) on the first side (Fig. 3) to at least partly conceal (Fig. 3) the mull joint (between 14 and 16) on the first side (Fig. 3); and
attaching (Fig. 3 showing attachment), with a fastener (56; notably, the language does not require only one fastener, nor does it require that fastener passes through all of the below), the first cover member (82), the one of the pair of first frame members (24 on 14), the stiffener member (28/30), and the second frame member (24 on 16),
but fails to disclose a first corner member at a corner arrangement thereof and attaching the cover member to the stiffener member.
However, Riegelman discloses a first corner member (16) at a first corner arrangement (at 16) thereof with a fastener (60, 64, 68).
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 Budzinski with disclose a first corner member at a corner arrangement thereof as disclosed by Riegelman in order to interconnect the frame elements in a rigid manner preventing twisting thereof, maintaining the angle of connection (Col 1 lines 54-57).
In addition, Luvison discloses attaching (Fig. 4) the cover member (46) to the stiffener member (31).
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 Budzinski with attaching the cover member to the stiffener member (instead of the to the first and second window frames, per Budzinski) as disclosed by Luvison in order to allow for more play between the cover member and the frames, as when the cover member is attached to the frames, over time during shifting and settling, the cover member is more likely to crack and fail, whereas when attached to the stiffener with a degree of play between the frames, the cover member will not be subject to such loads due to shifting and settling.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budzinski (US 2003/0217523) in view of Riegelman (US 6,341,465), Luvison (US 2019/0093416) and Hensley (US 2014/0260064).
Re claim 7, Budzinski as modified discloses the mulling system of claim 1, wherein the stiffener member (28/30) includes a first side portion (top side thereof) proximate the first side (Fig. 3), a second side portion (bottom side thereof) proximate the second side (Fig. 3),
but fails to disclose a thermal break member that attaches the first side portion and the second side portion, the thermal break member having lower thermal conductivity than at least one of the first and second side portions.
However, Hensley discloses a thermal break member (16) that attaches the first side portion (30) and the second side portion (60), the thermal break member (16) having lower thermal conductivity ([0019] disclosing plastic) than at least one of the first and second side portions (30, 60; [0020] disclosing aluminum).
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 mulling system of Budzinski with a thermal break member that attaches the first side portion and the second side portion, the thermal break member having lower thermal conductivity than at least one of the first and second side portions as disclosed by Hensley in order to mechanically connect the first and second portions in a spaced relationship while minimizing heat transfer ([0023]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3, 5, 8 and 20 is/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.
Claims 10-13, 15-18 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive inasmuch as they apply to claims 1 and 19. Any arguments or remarks regarding claims 3, 5, 8, 10-13, 15-18 and 20 are rendered moot by the indication of allowable subject matter above.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Applicant first argues that there is not sufficient motivation to modify Budzinski with Riegelman. Applicant argues the reasoning supplied in the Office Action is inadequate. The Office Action stated such a modification would be obvious in order to “allow for more play between the cover member and the frames, as when the cover member is attached to the frames, over time during shifting and settling, the cover member is more likely to crack and fail, whereas when attached to the stiffener with a degree of play between the frames, the cover member will not be subject to such loads due to shifting and settling.” Applicant contends that this is hindsight reasoning. However, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The reasoning provided in the Office Action is common sense and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Next, Applicant contends that modifying the system as suggested in the Office Acton to include the cover 46 of Luvison would necessitate removal of the screws 70 of Budzinski. Applicant argues that the first and second members 28 and 30 would be loose and the system would not work for its intended purpose. First, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In addition, Luvison is not specifically relied upon as disclosing a cover, as Budzinski discloses this feature. Luvison is relied upon as disclosing the cover member that attaches to the stiffener member. Second, the intended purpose of Budzinski is to provide a mulling system that is “more resistant to water infiltration, while standardizing assembly and easily and economically meeting applicable design standards” ([0006]). Modification of the Budzinski with the cover member that attaches to the stiffener member per Luvison would not preclude Budzinski to be more resistant to water infiltration, while standardizing assembly and easily and economically meeting applicable design standards. Finally, even though Applicant contends that the proposed modification “would be loose,” there is no evidence to support this other than conclusions drawn by Applicant.
As such, the prior art meets the claim.
Any arguments regarding any remaining dependent claims are addressed by the above.
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 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