DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 30-35, 37-40 and 42-48 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 30, line 14 recites “at least one slot or second opening extending into one of the at least one frame member and the at least one inwardly-facing edge of the first opening…” Then the claim recites in line 28 “wherein the at least one slot or second opening comprises the at least one second opening extending into the at least one frame member”. The second limitation specifies that the at least one slot or second opening is specifically the at least one second opening and that it extends into the at least one frame member. As such, it appears that the limitations “at least one slot” and “the at least one inwardly-facing edge of the first opening…” are extraneous and unnecessary since the claim goes onto specify which of the alternatives the structure specifically comprises. The extraneous limitations muddy the scope of the claim.
Claim 33 recites “wherein the at least one slot or second opening comprises at least one planar slot extending into the at least one inwardly-facing edge of the first opening”. This limitation appears to contradict claim 30 which specifies that the at least one slot of second opening is the second opening extending into the at least one frame member. Is this additional structure to the at least one second opening that extends into the at least one frame member? If so, is there support for this in the original disclosure and figures? Are they two different embodiments?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 30-32, 37-40, 42-43 and 45-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artwick et al., US 4,897,975 in view of Peterson, US 2,848,762 and Coddens, US 5,226,466.
Regarding claims 30 and 49:
Artwick discloses in combination:
a door (18) including a first door skin (20a) having an outer surface defining one planar surface of the door, a second door skin (20b) having an outer surface defining an opposite planar surface of the door, a first opening formed through the door and at least a first glazing strip (24) extending over a periphery of the first opening,
an insulated glass unit (14), and
a mounting arrangement for mounting the IG in the first opening, the mounting arrangement comprising:
at least one frame member (36) positioned between the first and second door skins along at least one edge of the first opening to form at least one inwardly- facing edge of the first opening,
at least one slot (38) or second opening extending into one of the at least one frame member and the at least one inwardly-facing edge of the first opening between the at least one frame member and the second door skin, and
at least a second glazing strip (16) having a body with a top surface and a bottom surface opposite the top surface, and a flange (100) extending away from the body, the at least a second glazing strip configured to be mounted to the door such that, with the IG positioned in the first opening with one outer panel of the IG in contact with the inner surface of the at least a first glazing strip about a periphery of the IG, insertion of the flange (100) into the slot (38) or second opening causes the bottom surface of the body of the at least a second glazing strip (16b) to engage an opposite panel of the IG about the periphery of the IG to retain the IG in the first opening;
wherein the at least one slot (38)or second opening comprises the at least one second opening extending into the at least one frame member, and
wherein the flange (104) forms an acute angle with the plane tangent to the top surface of the body at the peak height of the top surface of the body (refer to Fig. 5),
and wherein insertion of the flange into the second opening engages the at least one frame member with the flange to secure the flange to the at least one frame member.
Artwick discloses wherein each of the first and second glazing strips have an outer surface that appears to be approximately flush with the outer surface of the first door skin, but Artwick does not expressly disclose wherein they are flush.
Peterson discloses a glass unit mounting structure including skins (12 and 13) having a first glazing strip (15) flush with the outer surface of a first skin (12) and a second glazing strip with a flange extending away from the body wherein a plane tangent to a peak height of the top surface of the body is approximately flush with the outer surface of the second door skin (col. 2, ll. 40-42).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to make the glazing strips of Artwick flush/coplanar as suggested by Peterson for appearance purposes (col. 2, ll. 40-42).
Artwick does not expressly disclose a blind adjustment.
Coddens discloses an IG comprising a blind adjustment track (104) mounted to an outer surface of the IG adjacent to a frame such that the blind adjustment track extends approximately parallel with, and spaced apart by a distance D from, the body of the at least a second glazing strip with the flange inserted into the opening defined in the at least one frame member, and wherein the acute angle formed by the flange with respect to the plane tangent to the peak height of the top surface of the body is selected, taking into account the distance D, such that the blind adjustment track will not impede the insertion into, or removal of, the flange into or out of the opening defined in the at least one frame member (i.e. the position of the adjustment track of Coddens has a distance D so as to not impede installation of the IG into an opening).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to install blinds and a blind adjustment track as suggested by Coddens to the IG of Artwick in order to adjust the level of exterior light within a space.
Regarding claim 31:
Peterson discloses wherein the top surface of the body of the at least a second glazing strip is planar such that the plane tangent to the peak height of the top surface of the body is a plane defined by the planar top surface of the body.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to substitute the second glazing strip structure and shape as suggested by Peterson for the strip of Artwick for aesthetics.
Regarding claim 32:
Artwick discloses wherein the top surface of the body of the at least a second glazing strip is non-planar.
Regarding claim 37:
Artwick discloses wherein the at least one frame member defines a channel (beneath lip 48) in communication with the opening, and wherein the channel and the flange (104) are configured to engage one another so as to retain the flange within the channel.
Regarding claim 38:
Artwick discloses wherein one of the flange and the channel defines at least one protrusion (104) extending from a surface thereof, and the other of the flange and the channel defines at least one notch configured to engage the at least one protrusion upon insertion of the flange into the channel.
Regarding claims 39-40:
Artwick modified in view of Peterson discloses wherein the at least a second glazing strip defines a hinge between the body and the flange (refer to Figs. 6 and 7, showing the hinge action between the body and the flange), and
wherein, upon insertion of the flange into the opening defined in the at least one frame member, the at least one frame member acts against the body to rotate or pivot the body relative to the flange about the hinge so as to force the bottom surface of the body into contact with opposite outer panel of the IG to retain the IG in the opening;
wherein rotating or pivoting of the body relative to the flange about the hinge forces the plane tangent to the peak height of the top surface of the body approximately flush with the outer surface of the second door skin.
PNG
media_image1.png
405
787
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 42-43:
Artwick discloses wherein the opening defined in the at least one frame member defines at least a first retention structure and the flange defines at least a second retention structure, and wherein the at least a first retention structure and the at least a second retention structure are complementarily configured to engage one another as the flange is inserted into the opening defined in the at least one frame member so as to retain the flange within the at least one frame member;
wherein the at least a first retention structure and the at least a second retention structure are both configured to releasably engage one another such that the flange can be withdrawn from the opening defined in the at least one frame member (refer to the flange 104, reproduced above).
Regarding claim 45:
Artwick discloses wherein the top surface of the body of the at least a second glazing strip is one of planar, such that the plane tangent to the peak height of the top surface of the body is a plane defined by the planar top surface of the body, or non-planar.
Regarding claim 46:
Artwick discloses wherein the at least one frame member comprises a plurality of frame members (refer to Fig. 2) each positioned between the first and second door skins along a different respective edge of the opening of the door such that the plurality of frame members together extend continuously or discontinuously about a periphery of the opening of the door, and wherein the at least a second glazing strip comprises a plurality of second glazing strips together extending continuously about the periphery of the opening of the door and each configured to engage a different respective one of the plurality of frame members.
Regarding claim 47:
Artwick modified in view of Peterson discloses wherein the at least a first glazing strip (15 of Peterson) is integral with the first door skin such that the first door skin and the at least a first glazing strip are of unitary construction.
Regarding claim 48:
Artwick discloses wherein the at least a first glazing strip (78) is separate from the first door skin and configured to be coupled to the at least one frame member.
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artwick et al., US 4,897,975 in view of Peterson, US 2,848,762 and Coddens, US 5,226,466 as applied to claim 30, further in view of Czekala, US 5,052,163.
Regarding claims 33-35:
Artwick discloses wherein the slot is approximately planar and wherein the flange is approximately planar. However, Artwick does not disclose wherein the planar flange is parallel with the bottom surface of the body and with the plane tangent to the peak height of the top surface of the body, nor does Artwick disclose first and second sealing members.
Czekala discloses a slot (19) that is planar and wherein a flange (218i) is planar, wherein the planar flange is parallel with the bottom surface (218c) of the body and with a plane tangent to the peak height of a top surface of the body;
wherein the bottom surface of the body of the at least a second glazing strip is a planar bottom surface, and further comprising at least a first sealing member (218n) extending along the planar bottom surface, the at least a first sealing member configured to form a seal between the planar bottom surface and the opposite panel of the IG about the periphery thereof;
further comprising at least a second sealing member (218h) extending along at least one face of the planar flange, the at least a second sealing member configured to form a friction fit between the flange and the at least one planar slot.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to substitute the second glazing strip and slot of Czekala for that of Artwick in order to provide for ease of mounting with resiliency to retain against vibration and rattling (Summary of Czekala).
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artwick et al., US 4,897,975 in view of Peterson, US 2,848,762 and Coddens, US 5,226,466 as applied to claim 30, further in view of Kegley, US 2,564,481.
Regarding claim 44:
Artwick discloses releasable engagement.
Kegley discloses a glass unit installation structure having a second glazing strip (10) wherein the at least a first retention structure (11) and the at least a second retention structure (23) are both configured to non-releasably engage one another (via fastener) such that, following engagement of the at least a first retention structure and the at least a second retention structure, the flange cannot thereafter be withdrawn from the opening defined in the at least one frame member without damaging at least one of the flange and the at least one frame member.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to make the retention structures of Artwick non-releasable as suggested by Kegley in order to prevent inadvertent removal of the retention structures from each other providing increased security of the connection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that adding a blind adjustment track and blinds to the device of Artwick would render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there is nothing in Artwick that suggests adding a blind and a blind mechanism would make the device of Artwick inoperable. Coddens shows the blind adjustment in a location that is away from the periphery of the glazing. Mounting the blind adjustment in a similar location on Artwick would not compromise or impede the ability for the glazing to be installed in the same manner that it does not impact the glazing installation of Coddens. No major redesign would be required in Artwick, as the modification is directed to adding blinds between the panes with an adjustment mechanism mounted upon the glazing to adjust the blinds. The frame of Artwick would not be impacted. The individual deficiencies (e.g. insertable/removable glazing strips) of the secondary reference of Coddens are not germane to the rejection. Coddens is not relied upon to teach insertability and removability.
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 BRENT W HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-3661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6:00p MT.
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 Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633