DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/550,858.
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claims 1-13 are examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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) 1-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rukavina et al. (U.S. Publication 2002/0133168).
Regarding claim 1, Rukavina et al. disclose a multiple glazing unit comprising at least one first pane (#30) and a second pane (#40) separated by an air gap (#16), a peripheral portion of the multiple glazing unit being embedded in a mounting gasket (#25) covering a main surface (the top, front surface of the first pane #30 of figure 2) opposite to the second pane (see figure 2), over a certain distance from an edge of the multiple glazing unit, according to a peripheral strip of the main surface of the pane (see figure 2), the mounting gasket covering edges of the first pane and of the second pane and occupying a peripheral portion of the air gap (see figure 2), between two main surfaces facing the first pane and the second pane (see figure 2), wherein a reinforcing and sealing element (#22) is incorporated into the mounting gasket (see figure 2, where the reinforcing and sealing element #22 is incorporated into the exterior surface of the gasket #25) by covering a peripheral portion of the main surface of the first pane opposite the second pane (see figure 2, where the top portion of element #22 coverings the top, front facing main surface of the first pane #30), and supported on an edge face of the second pane, so as to limit a bending effect of the first pane (see figure 2, where the element #22 comprises of a vertical portion that extends parallel to and is supported by the end, vertical face of the second pane #40 through the gasket #25 and also comprises of a return portion so as to directly contact the perimeter edge face of the second pane #40).
Regarding claim 2, Rukavina et al. disclose the reinforcing and sealing element is metallic or composite (paragraph 20 discloses element #22 can comprise of metal).
Regarding claim 3, Rukavina et al. disclose the first pane is a laminated glazing unit comprising a first sheet (#34) that is acrylic or made of mineral glass (acrylic, see paragraph 27), bonded to a second sheet (#38) that is acrylic or made of mineral glass (acrylic, see paragraph 27) by an adhesive interlayer (#36) made of TPU, PVB, or EVA (PVB, see paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 4, Rukavina et al. disclose a peripheral portion of the first pane covered by the mounting gasket is thinner relative to a central part of the first pane to allow a mounting structure to cover the mounting gasket while being flush with the main surface of the first pane opposite the second pane (see figure 2, where the ends of the first pane #34 are tapered so as to comprise less material at the ends thereof and where a mounting structure is configured to engage the outer element #22 which is tapered as well so as to allow the mounting structure to be flush/coplanar with the top, front main surface of the first pane, where such a mounting surface is not positively defined and the pane of Rukavina et al. is so configured).
Regarding claim 5, Rukavina et al. disclose the second pane is monolithic acrylic (for purposes of rejecting claim 5, the second pane can be considered element #42, where paragraph 29 discloses a monolithic acrylic can be used for such a pane).
Regarding claim 6, Rukavina et al. disclose a part of an edge face of the first pane connecting the thinned peripheral portion of the first pane to the main surface of the first pane opposite the second pane has a shape on which a matching shaped fold of the reinforcing and sealing element is fitted, in alignment, so as to ensure that the first pane is retained in place (see figure 2, where the thinned portion of the first pane #34 has a shape which the element #22 matches in order to form aligned, curved portions to ensure retention of the first pane in its proper place).
Regarding claim 7, Rukavina et al. disclose said shape and said matching fold extend over the entire periphery of the multiple glazing unit in a continuous manner (see figures 1 and 2, where the element #22 extends all around the periphery of the first pane and the assembly).
Regarding claim 11, Rukavina et al. disclose a wall of a volume subjected to pressurization stresses, said wall comprising a multiple glazing unit according to claim 1 (paragraphs 3 and 21 disclose such an window assembly is to be used as a window in the wall of an aircraft cabin).
Regarding claim 12, Rukavina et al. disclose the multiple glazing unit is a side or front glazing unit of an aircraft (such a unit of Rukavina et al. would be considered formed on a side of an aircraft cabin, as taught in paragraphs 3 and 21).
Regarding claim 13, Rukavina et al. disclose the multiple glazing unit is an airplane window (see paragraphs 16 and 19).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)) as anticipated by Rukavina et al. or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rukavina et al.
Regarding claim 8, Rukavina et al. disclose said shape and said matching-shaping fold have a width comprised between 2 and 50 mm (if the width is considered to extend along the Y-axis of figure 2 while the length extends along the x-axis, paragraph 27 discloses the thickness of ply #34 in such a direction is from 5.1 to 10.2 mm or any other thickness as needed and thus such a shape and fold width would also comprise of a dimension which falls within such a range as defined) and are 3 to 50 in number over the entire periphery of the multiple glazing unit (figure 1 depicts the window is rectangular shaped and thus the shapes and folds comprise of 4 in number over the periphery of the unit). However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret such a dimension for the width of the fold and shape, paragraph 27 of Rukavina et al. discloses the thickness of the ply #34 can be any thickness as needed, where a thickness from 5.1 to 10.2 mm is preferred and where the width of the shape and fold is formed along such a thickness direction of the pane #34. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the width of the shape and fold of Rukavina et al. to fall within the range as defined in order to provide a window of strength as needed by the end user to provide an aircraft that meets certain safety and strength standards and also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)) as anticipated by Rukavina et al. or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rukavina et al. in view of Chaussade et al. (U.S. Publication 2003/0087048).
Regarding claim 9, Rukavina et al. disclose said shape consists of a chamfer of the edge face of the first pane (see figure 2, where the edges of the first pane #34 comprise of a rounded chamfer). However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret a rounded taper is considered a chamfer as defined, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Chaussade et al. that such peripheral edges #2a of a first pane #1 of an aircraft window #1 can be chamfered for proper installation to the aircraft frame. See figure 2 and paragraph 39. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chamfered the edges of the first pane of Rukavina et al., as taught in Chaussade et al., in order to provide proper installation of such a window unit to an aircraft frame to ensure airtightness of the assembly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rukavina et al. in view of Burgunder et al. (U.S. Publication 2010/0163676).
Regarding claim 10, Rukavina et al. disclose the shape and matching profile comprise of a rounded chamfer which extends on the peripheral edges of the first pane #34 instead of a square profiled protuberance from a part of the edge surface of the first pane which is held by a hook shaped fold of the sealing element. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Burgunder et al., that the outer first pane #101b of an aircraft assembly can comprise of a rectangular groove formed in the peripheral edge thereof so that a smaller rectangular protuberance extends therefrom which a gasket #15b is to fit within and a reinforcing element #12 is to hook within as well. See figure 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the peripheral edges of the first pane of Rukavina et al. to comprise of a square shaped protuberance with a slot thereabove, as taught in Burgunder et al., in order to provide proper installation of the window unit to a frame of an aircraft to ensure airtightness without accidental removal of the window therefrom and also since it has been held that changing the shape of an object is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed protuberance was significant, i.e. rectangular or square. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 D 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635