DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 18/543,403, filed 12/18/2023, which is a continuation of PCT/CN2023/092661, filed 5/8/2023, which claims priority to Chinese application CN202222416211.6, filed 9/13/2022.
Claims 1-35 are pending; Claims 1-25 and 32-35 are examined herein.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I, Claims 1-25 and 32-35 in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0229654 A1: Fig. 26 of this reference teaches a profile member with recesses.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0182678 A1: This reference teaches various profile structures comprising recesses.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0159850 A1: This reference teaches various profile structures comprising recesses.
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.
Claims 1-19, 21, 24-25 and 32-35 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein a first side wall and a first convex strip spaced opposite to an upper end of the first side wall” in lines 5-6. The metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite, because the structure of the first side wall and the first convex strip in relation to the other structural features of the profile are unclear.
Claims 2-19 and 32-35 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “the side wall.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because there is no prior recitation of “a side wall,” merely “a first side wall.” It is unclear whether “the side wall” in Claim 2 refers to the first side wall of Claim 1, or another structure.
Claim 2 recites “the convex strip.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because there is no prior recitation of “a convex strip,” merely “a first convex strip” and “a second convex strip.” It is unclear whether “the convex strip” in Claim 2 refers to the first/second convex strip of Claim 1, or another structure.
Claim 8 recites “inclined upward in the direction from inside to outside.” This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear what “inside” and “outside” are relative to.
Claim 8 further recites “assuming that a thickness of the first convex strip is y.. then…”
This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear whether the features that are “assumed” are actually required by the claim.
Claim 9 is indefinite, because of its dependence on Claim 8.
Claim 10 recites “an inclination angle of a top surface of the first bayonet and an end surface of the first convex strip relative to a bottom surface of the profile is 0°.” This limitation is indefinite, because “an inclination angle” is singular and “a top surface of the first bayonet and an end surface of the first convex strip” are two features. Therefore, it is unclear whether one/both of a top surface of the first bayonet and/or an end surface of the first convex strip must have the claimed inclination angle.
Claim 11 recites “inclined downward in a direction from inside to outside.” This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear what “inside” and “outside” are relative to.
Claim 12 is indefinite, because of its dependence on Claim 11.
Claim 15 recites “inclined upward in a direction from outside to inside.” This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear what “inside” and “outside” are relative to.
Claim 16 is indefinite, because of its dependence on Claim 15.
Claim 16 recites “inclined inward in a direction from bottom to top.” This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear what “inward,” “bottom,” and “top” are relative to.
Claim 21 recites “the lower end of the side wall and the upper end of the side wall.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations, because there is no prior recitation of “a lower end” or “an upper end” of the side wall.
Claim 24 recites “an inclination angle of a top surface of the bayonet and an end surface of the convex strip relative to a bottom surface of the profile is 0°.” This limitation is indefinite, because “an inclination angle” is singular and “a top surface of the bayonet and an end surface of the convex strip” are two features. Therefore, it is unclear whether one/both of a top surface of the bayonet and/or an end surface of the convex strip must have the claimed inclination angle.
Claim 25 recites “the convex strips.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because there is no prior recitation of “convex strips,” merely “a convex strip.”
Claim 32 recites “the profile component.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because Claim 32 includes a prior recitation of a plurality of profile components. Therefore, it is unclear to which of the plurality of profile components is referred by “the profile component.”
Claims 33-35 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 32.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0223432 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Lee teaches a profile component 10 (Figs. 2-4, paragraphs [0017]-[0023]).
The profile component of Lee comprises a profile 10 and a reinforcement (corresponding to the portion of item 10 indicated in the inset below) (Figs. 2-3, paragraphs [0019]-[0021]).
The inset below teaches that the profile 10 includes an outer frame with a mold cavity inside and a load- bearing part located on the outer frame and used to carry workpieces (i.e. solar modules 30) to be installed.
The inset below teaches that the profile comprises a first side wall and a first convex strip spaced opposite to an upper end of the first side wall, a first bayonet being formed between the first convex strip and the upper end of the first side wall. It is noted that the structure of the “bayonets” in the inset below is consistent with the structure of the “bayonet” of the instant invention (see instant specification, Fig. 1A, paragraph [0078]).
The inset below teaches that the reinforcement has a connecting portion, an extending portion and a second convex strip protruding from an end of the extending portion, and when the reinforcement is combined with the outer frame through the connecting portion.
The inset below teaches that a second bayonet is formed between (i.e. structurally disposed between) the second convex strip, the extending portion and a lower end of the first side wall.
The inset below teaches that the first convex strip is opposite to the second convex strip (i.e. disposed on opposite vertical sides of the profile).
The inset below teaches that the first bayonet is opposite to the second bayonet (i.e. disposed on an opposite vertical side of the profile from the second bayonet).
The inset below teaches that the first and second bayonets form a side groove that are structurally capable of being used to install a piece/profile pressing piece 20 therein.
PNG
media_image1.png
595
821
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that “used to carry workpieces to be installed” and “for installing a profile pressing piece” are intended use limitations of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Claims 1-2, 10, 18-21, 24, and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by West, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0339179 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, West teaches a profile component (Figs. 9A-B, paragraphs [0085]-[0088]).
The profile component includes a profile (the parts of which are indicated in the inset below) and a reinforcement 103.
The inset below teaches that the profile includes an outer frame 115 with a mold cavity inside (i.e. the mold cavity formed by item 117) and a load- bearing part 116 located on the outer frame and used to carry workpieces to be installed (i.e. solar panels).
The inset below teaches that the component comprises a first side wall 112 and a first convex strip 104 spaced opposite to an upper end of the first side wall.
The inset below teaches that a first bayonet 106 (i.e. recessed area) is formed between the first convex strip 104 and the upper end of the first side wall. It is noted that the structure of the “bayonet” in the inset below is consistent with the structure of the “bayonet” of the instant invention (see instant specification, Fig. 1A, paragraph [0078]).
The inset below teaches that the reinforcement has a connecting portion, an extending portion and a second convex strip 105 protruding from an end of the extending portion.
The inset below teaches that the reinforcement is combined with the outer frame through the connecting portion.
The inset below teaches that a second bayonet 107 (i.e. recessed area) is formed between the second convex strip 105, the extending portion and a lower end of the first side wall 112.
The inset below teaches that the first convex strip 104 is opposite to the second convex strip 105, and the first bayonet 106 is opposite to the second bayonet 107, forming a side groove for installing a profile pressing piece 5 (Figs. 3 and 5, paragraphs [0070]-[0073]).
PNG
media_image2.png
612
1012
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is noted that “used to carry workpieces to be installed” and “for installing a profile pressing piece” are intended use limitations of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 2, the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that the lower end of the side wall/first side wall 112 does not exceed an inner edge of the convex strip (i.e. either of the first or second convex strips) in an outward direction (i.e. a rightward direction of Fig. 9B) perpendicular to the first side wall.
In reference to Claim 10, the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that the top surface of the first bayonet is parallel to the bottom surface of the profile.
Therefore, West teaches that an inclination angle of a top surface of the first bayonet relative to a bottom surface of the profile is 0°.
Figs. 9A-B teach that an end surface of the first convex strip 104 (i.e. the bottom-most linear surface) is parallel to the bottom surface of the profile.
Therefore, West teaches that an inclination angle of an end surface of the first convex strip 104 (i.e. the bottom-most linear surface) relative to a bottom surface of the profile is 0°.
In reference to Claim 18, West teaches that, when the profile is combined with the profile pressing piece, the teeth of the profile engage with and directly contact the interior side groove of the profile (paragraphs [0005] and [0070]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that, when the profile is combined with the profile pressing piece, no gap exists between the first side wall and a first side of the profile pressing piece.
It is noted that “when the profile is combined with the profile pressing piece” are intended use limitations of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 19, the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that the first side wall 112 has a lateral protrusion 110/109.
In reference to Claim 20, West teaches a profile (Figs. 9A-B, paragraphs [0085]-[0088]).
The inset below teaches that the profile includes an outer frame 115 with a mold cavity inside (i.e. the mold cavity formed by item 117) and a load- bearing part 116 located above the outer frame and used to load a workpiece to be installed (i.e. a solar panel).
The inset below teaches that the outer frame further includes a side wall 112 and a convex strip 104 spaced opposite to an upper end of the side wall.
The inset below teaches that a bayonet 106 (i.e. recessed area) is formed between the convex strip 104 and the upper end of the side wall. It is noted that the structure of the “bayonets” in the inset below is consistent with the structure of the “bayonet” of the instant invention (see instant specification, Fig. 1A, paragraph [0078]).
The inset below teaches that a a lower end of the side wall 112 does not exceed an inner edge of the convex strip 104 in an outward direction perpendicular to the side wall (i.e. a rightward direction of the figure).
PNG
media_image3.png
519
857
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is noted that “used to load a workpiece to be installed” is an intended use limitation of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 21, Fig. 9b teaches that the upper and lower ends of the side wall 112 are coplanar with each other. Therefore, West teaches that the lower end of the side wall and the upper end of the side wall are flush with each other in an extending direction of the side wall.
In reference to Claim 24, the inset under the rejection of Claim 20 above teaches that the top surface of the bayonet is parallel to the bottom surface of the profile.
Therefore, West teaches that an inclination angle of a top surface of the bayonet relative to a bottom surface of the profile is 0°.
Figs. 9A-B teach that an end surface of the convex strip 104 (i.e. the bottom-most linear surface) is parallel to the bottom surface of the profile.
Therefore, West teaches that an inclination angle of an end surface of the convex strip 104 (i.e. the bottom-most linear surface) relative to a bottom surface of the profile is 0°.
In reference to Claim 32, West teaches a photovoltaic module frame (Figs. 1 and 5-8, paragraphs [0067] and [0081]-[0084]), including a plurality (i.e. four) of profile components according to claim 1, wherein at least one profile pressing piece 5 is installed on (i.e. in contact with) the side groove of the/a profile component.
In reference to Claim 33, West teaches that multiple profile components surround a closed area for carrying a photovoltaic component (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0067] and [0081]-[0084]).
In reference to Claim 34, Figs. 1 and 5-8 teach that at least some of the plurality of profile components are arranged adjacently, and the adjacently arranged profile components share the profile pressing piece 5.
In reference to Claim 35, West teaches a photovoltaic system including a photovoltaic module frame according to claim 32, and a plurality of photovoltaic cells arranged in the photovoltaic module frame (paragraph [0067]).
Claims 1-7, 11, 13-16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0068114 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Lu teaches profile component (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0016]-[0033]).
The profile component includes a profile 20 and a reinforcement 10.
The inset below teaches that the profile 20 includes an outer frame with a mold cavity inside and a load- bearing part located on the outer frame and used to carry workpieces 300 to be installed (Figs. 1-2 and 7).
The inset below teaches that the component comprises a first side wall and a first convex strip spaced opposite to (i.e. facing) an upper end of the first side wall.
The inset below teaches that the component comprises a first bayonet (i.e. a first recess) formed between the first convex strip and the upper end of the first side wall. It is noted that the structure of the “bayonets” in the inset below is consistent with the structure of the “bayonet” of the instant invention (see instant specification, Fig. 1A, paragraph [0078]).
The inset below teaches that the reinforcement 10 has a connecting portion, an extending portion and a second convex strip protruding from an end of the extending portion, and when the reinforcement 10 is combined with the outer frame through the connecting portion.
The inset below teaches that a second bayonet (second recessed area) is formed between the second convex strip, the extending portion and a lower end of the first side wall.
The inset below teaches that the first convex strip is opposite to the second convex strip (i.e. on opposite sides of the reinforcement), and the first bayonet is opposite to the second bayonet (i.e. on opposite sides of the reinforcement), forming a side groove for installing a profile pressing piece 40/300 (Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image4.png
590
898
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It is noted that “used to carry workpieces to be installed” and “for installing a profile pressing piece” are intended use limitations of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 2, the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that the lower end of the side wall/first side wall does not exceed an inner edge of the convex strip (i.e. either of the first or second convex strips) in an outward direction (i.e. a rightward or leftward direction of Fig. 1) perpendicular to the first side wall.
In reference to Claim 3, the inset below teaches that the connecting portion includes an upwardly extending side plate adapted to be combined with a second side wall of the outer frame through a fastener 40, the second side wall being opposite to the first side wall.
PNG
media_image5.png
542
661
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 4, Fig. 2 teaches that the outer frame has an opening 260 in a bottom of the outer frame, and the connecting portion includes a sub- connecting portion 30/40 inserted into the mold cavity through the opening (paragraphs [0024]-[0028]).
In reference to Claim 5, Figs. 1-2 teach that the connection portion includes a bottom plate adapted to be combined with a bottom surface of the outer frame through a fastener 40.
In reference to Claim 6, the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that the mold cavity includes a plurality of sub-cavities, corresponding to the mold cavity indicated in the inset above, and the additional cavity 260 (shown in Fig. 6) extending through the outer frame.
The inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that the sub-connecting portion is inserted into one of the sub-cavities (i.e. at least one of the sub-cavities).
In reference to Claim 7, the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that the mold cavity is a single mold cavity, and the sub-connecting portion 30/40 is close to or against an inner top surface of the mold cavity.
In reference to Claim 11, it is noted that Claim 11 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
The inset below teaches that an end surface of the second convex strip 50 is inclined downward in a direction from inside to outside relative to a bottom surface of the reinforcement.
PNG
media_image6.png
442
766
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 13, Figs. 1 and 7 teach that the profile pressing piece 40/300 has a coupling portion 304 that is coupled to the side groove (paragraphs [0034]-[0042]).
The coupling portion 304 includes a first side and a second side and a third side that are respectively connected to both ends of the first side (see the inset of Fig. 7 below).
The inset below teaches that the connection between the first side and the second side has a first protrusion, and the connection between the first side and the third side has a second protrusion.
The inset below teaches that, when the profile is combined with the profile pressing piece 40/300, the first protrusion snaps into the first bayonet (i.e. is disposed within the first bayonet), and the second protrusion snaps into (i.e. is disposed within) the second bayonet.
PNG
media_image7.png
432
696
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It is noted that “when the profile is combined with the profile pressing piece, the first protrusion snaps into the first bayonet, and the second protrusion snaps into the second bayonet” are intended use limitations of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 14, the inset below teaches that a vertical distance between a bottom surface of the second bayonet and a bottom surface of the reinforcement is greater than a vertical distance between an end surface of the second protrusion and the bottom surface of the profile pressing piece.
PNG
media_image8.png
493
764
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 15, it is noted that Claim 15 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
The inset below teaches that the second side of the profile pressing piece has a third protrusion spaced opposite to the first protrusion, and a first groove is formed between the first protrusion and the third protrusion to cooperate with the first convex strip.
The inset below teaches that a bottom surface of the first groove is inclined upward in a direction from outside to inside, and an inclination angle of the first groove relative to a bottom surface of the profile pressing piece (i.e. 90°) is greater than or equal to an inclination angle of an end surface of the first convex strip relative to a bottom surface of the profile (i.e. ~0°).
PNG
media_image9.png
432
812
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 16, it is noted that Claim 16 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
The inset below teaches that an outer surface of the third protrusion is inclined inward in a direction from bottom to top.
The inset below teaches that an inclination angle of the outer surface relative to the first side (i.e. 90°) is greater than or equal to an inclination angle of an end surface of the first convex strip relative to the bottom surface of the profile (i.e. ~0°).
PNG
media_image10.png
357
784
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 18, Fig. 7 teaches that, when the profile is combined with the profile pressing piece 40/300, the first side wall directly contacts the profile pressing piece 300.
Therefore, Lu teaches that, when the profile is combined with the profile pressing piece 40/300, a gap between the first side wall and a first side of the profile pressing piece is less than or equal to 2 mm.
In reference to Claim 19, the inset below teaches that the first side wall has a lateral protrusion.
PNG
media_image11.png
463
627
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It is noted that “when the profile is combined with the profile pressing piece” are intended use limitations of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 20, Lu teaches a profile (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0016]-[0033]).
The inset below teaches that the profile 20 includes an outer frame with a mold cavity inside and a load- bearing part located above the outer frame and used to load a workpiece 300 to be installed (Figs. 1-2 and 7).
The inset below teaches that the outer frame further includes a side wall and a convex strip spaced opposite to an upper end of the side wall.
The inset below teaches that a bayonet is formed between the convex strip and the upper end of the side wall.
The inset below teaches that a lower end of the side wall does not exceed an inner edge of the convex strip in an outward direction perpendicular to the side wall.
PNG
media_image12.png
499
659
media_image12.png
Greyscale
It is noted that “used to load a workpiece to be installed” is an intended use limitation of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 21, the inset under the rejection of Claim 20 above teaches that the upper and lower ends of the side wall are coplanar with each other. Therefore, Lu teaches that the lower end of the side wall and the upper end of the side wall are flush with each other in an extending direction of the side wall.
In reference to Claim 22, the inset under the rejection of Claim 20 above teaches that the outer frame has an opening 260 in a bottom of the outer frame (also shown in Fig. 2, paragraph [0024]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8-10, 12, 17, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0068114 A1).
In reference to Claims 8-9, it is noted that Claims 8-9 are indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Lu does not explicitly teach the structure of Claims 8-9.
However, he teaches that “ changes may be made in the detail, especially in matters of shape, size, and arrangement of the parts within the principles of the present disclosure” (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have optimized the shape, size, and angle of the features of the profile components of Lu, in order to obtain the desired shape and clamping ability of the profile.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a structure that meets the limitations of Claims 8-9, without undue experimentation.
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In reference to Claim 10, it is noted that Claim 10 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Lu does not explicitly teach the structure of Claim 10.
However, he teaches that “ changes may be made in the detail, especially in matters of shape, size, and arrangement of the parts within the principles of the present disclosure” (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have optimized the shape, size, and angle of the features of the profile components of Lu, in order to obtain the desired shape and clamping ability of the profile.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a structure that meets the limitations of Claim 10, without undue experimentation.
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In reference to Claim 12, it is noted that Claim 12 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Lu does not explicitly teach the structure of Claim 12.
However, he teaches that “ changes may be made in the detail, especially in matters of shape, size, and arrangement of the parts within the principles of the present disclosure” (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have optimized the shape, size, and angle of the features of the profile components of Lu, in order to obtain the desired shape and clamping ability of the profile.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a structure that meets the limitations of Claim 12, without undue experimentation.
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In reference to Claim 17, Lu is silent regarding the dimensions of the device of his invention.
Therefore, he does not explicitly teach the structure of Claim 17.
However, he teaches that “ changes may be made in the detail, especially in matters of shape, size, and arrangement of the parts within the principles of the present disclosure” (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have optimized the shape, size, and angle of the features of the profile components of Lu, in order to obtain the desired shape and clamping ability of the profile.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a structure that meets the limitations of Claim 17, without undue experimentation.
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In reference to Claim 23, Lu does not explicitly teach the limitations of Claim 23.
However, he teaches that “ changes may be made in the detail, especially in matters of shape, size, and arrangement of the parts within the principles of the present disclosure” (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have optimized the shape, size, and angle of the features of the profile components of Lu, in order to obtain the desired shape and clamping ability of the profile.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a structure that meets the limitations of Claim 23, without undue experimentation.
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In reference to Claim 24, Lu does not explicitly teach the limitations of Claim 24.
However, he teaches that “ changes may be made in the detail, especially in matters of shape, size, and arrangement of the parts within the principles of the present disclosure” (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have optimized the shape, size, and angle of the features of the profile components of Lu, in order to obtain the desired shape and clamping ability of the profile.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a structure that meets the limitations of Claim 24, without undue experimentation.
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In reference to Claim 25, Lu is silent regarding the dimensions of the device of his invention.
Therefore, he does not explicitly teach the structure of Claim 25.
However, he teaches that “ changes may be made in the detail, especially in matters of shape, size, and arrangement of the parts within the principles of the present disclosure” (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have optimized the shape, size, and angle of the features of the profile components of Lu, in order to obtain the desired shape and clamping ability of the profile.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a structure that meets the limitations of Claim 25, without undue experimentation.
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721