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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11 March 2026, with respect to the objections to claims 11 and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of 11 December 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objections to claims 1 have been considered but are not persuasive. Claim 1 claims an adjustable bolt receiver intended for use with elements of a fenestration unit. In contrast, claim 18 positively claims a fenestration unit including an adjustable bolt receiver. As elements of the fenestration unit are not positively claimed in claims 1 and 12-13, each reference to these elements is interpreted as a statement of intended use and should be preceded by ‘a’ rather than ‘the’. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claim(s) 1 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “a first member configured to be fixedly attached to [[the]] a panel support, the first member having a first opening defining an axis”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim(s) 1 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “the insert projection at least partly defining a second opening configured to receive [[the]] a bolt when in the extended position to secure [[the]] a panel to [[the]] a panel support”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim(s) 12 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “the base extension being insertable into [[the]] a panel support”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim(s) 13 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “wherein the base extension includes a snap-fit projection that is resiliently flexible for snap-fitting into [[the]] a panel support”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh (US-9580935-B2).
With regards to claim 1, Singh discloses an adjustable bolt receiver (100 Figure 14) for selectively securing a panel of a fenestration unit to a panel support of the fenestration unit, the fenestration unit having a bolt that is slidably attached to the panel for movement between a retracted position and an extended position relative to the panel for selectively engaging with the panel support (interpreted as a statement of intended use, Singh’s adjustable bolt receiver is suitable for selectively securing a panel of a fenestration unit to a panel support of the fenestration unit, the fenestration unit having a bolt that is slidably attached to the panel for movement between a retracted position and an extended position relative to the panel for selectively engaging with the panel support, Col. 8 Lines 32-43), the adjustable bolt receiver comprising:
a first member (300 Figure 15) configured to be fixedly attached to the panel support (interpreted as a statement of intended use, the first member is configured to be fixedly attached to a panel support to which the adjustable bolt receiver is mounted by means of screws 820, Figure 1), the first member having a first opening (350 Figure 15) defining an axis (a central axis of the first opening, Figure 15), the first member including at least one first engagement feature (324 Figure 14); and
a second member (600 Figure 15) that includes a strike head (front face of 600, Figure 15) and an insert projection (projected body of 600, Figure 15) that projects from an underside of the strike head, the insert projection including at least one second engagement feature (626 Figure 15), the strike head extending away from the insert projection to cover over the at least one second engagement feature (as shown Figure 14), the insert projection being receivable in the first opening in a first position along the axis (as shown Figure 14) and, alternatively, in a second position along the axis (Col. 5 Lines 57-67), the at least one second engagement feature configured to engage with the at least one first engagement feature for retaining the insert projection in the first position and in the second position along the axis (as shown Figure 14), the insert projection at least partly defining a second opening (interior of insert projection of 600, Figure 15) configured to receive the bolt when in the extended position to secure the panel to the panel support (interpreted as a statement of intended use, the second opening is configured to receive a slidable latch bolt when in the extended position to secure the panel to the panel support, Col. 8 Lines 32-43).
With regards to claim 2, Singh discloses the adjustable bolt receiver of claim 1, wherein the second opening (interior of insert projection of 600, Figure 15) is a through-hole extending along an insertion axis (central axis of insert projection of 600, Figure 15) through the strike head (front face of 600, Figure 15) and the insert projection (projected body of 600, Figure 15).
With regards to claim 3, Singh discloses the adjustable bolt receiver of claim 2, wherein the second opening (interior of insert projection of 600, Figure 15) is a rectangular through-hole.
With regards to claim 6, Singh discloses the adjustable bolt receiver of claim 1, wherein the first member (300 Figure 15) is symmetrical about the axis (the central axis of the first opening, Figure 15).
With regards to claim 7, Singh discloses the adjustable bolt receiver of claim 1, wherein the second member (600 Figure 15) is symmetrical about the axis (the central axis of the first opening, Figure 15).
With regards to claim 8, Singh discloses the adjustable bolt receiver of claim 1, wherein both the first member (300 Figure 15) and the second member (600 Figure 15) are symmetrical about the axis (the central axis of the first opening, Figure 15).
With regards to claim 9, Singh discloses the adjustable bolt receiver of claim 1, wherein the at least one first engagement feature (324 Figure 14) comprises an array of slots, and wherein the at least one second engagement feature (626 Figure 15) includes at least one flange extending from the insert projection (projected body of 600, Figure 15).
With regards to claim 10, Singh discloses the adjustable bolt receiver of claim 9, wherein the at least one flange (626 Figure 15) includes a first flange and a second flange (left and right portions of 626, Figure 15) disposed on opposite sides of the axis (left and right sides of the central axis of the first opening, Figure 15).
With regards to claim 11, Singh discloses the adjustable bolt receiver of claim 9, wherein individual ones of slots in the array of slots (324 Figure 14) extend longitudinally along an insertion axis (central axis of 600, Figure 15) and are individually tapered in a cross-section taken normal to the insertion axis (as shown Figure 14); and
wherein the at least one flange (626 Figure 15) is tapered (to fit with the corresponding taper of the slots, as shown Figure 14) in the cross-section.
With regards to claim 12, Singh discloses the adjustable bolt receiver of claim 1, wherein the first member (300 Figure 15) includes a support head (360 Figure 15) and a base extension (320 Figure 15) that extends from the support head, the base extension being tubular with the first opening (350 Figure 15) extending therethrough, the base extension including the plurality of first engagement features (324 Figure 15), the base extension being insertable into the panel support (interpreted as a statement of intended use, the base extension is insertable into a panel support, as shown Figure 14).
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Ohrstrom (US-20230047419-A1). All citations refer to the Singh reference unless otherwise noted.
With regards to claim 13, Singh discloses the adjustable bolt receiver of claim 12.
Singh does not disclose that the base extension (320 Figure 15) includes a snap-fit projection.
Singh instead discloses that the base extension includes alternate attachment features (365 Figure 15) for attaching to a panel support (interpreted as a statement of intended use).
However, Ohrstrom teaches a fenestration unit comprising a base extension (500 Figure 24) comprising a snap-fit projection (532 Figure 24) that is resiliently flexible for snap-fitting into a panel support (Para. 0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Singh’s attachment features with Ohrstrom’s snap-fit projection, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to use Ohrstrom’s snap-fit projection to allow a tool-free attachment of Singh’s base extension to a panel support.
Therefore, Singh in view of Ohrstrom teaches that the base extension (320 Figure 15) includes a snap-fit projection (532 Figure 24 – Ohrstrom) that is spaced apart from the support head (360 Figure 15) to define a gap therebetween, the snap-fit projection being resiliently flexible relative to the support head for snap-fitting the panel support in the gap between the snap-fit projection and the support head (interpreted as a statement of intended use).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh alone.
With regards to claim 14, Singh discloses the adjustable bolt receiver of claim 1.
Singh is silent on whether the first member (300 Figure 15) and the second member (600 Figure 15) are constructed of a polymeric material.
However, In re Leshin (277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416) held that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct Singh’s first member and second member of a polymeric material, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to use a polymeric material for its light weight and affordability.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Edlin (US-20210277710-A1). All citations refer to the Singh reference unless otherwise noted.
With regards to claim 15, Singh discloses an adjustable bolt receiver (Figure 14) configured for selectively securing a panel of a fenestration unit to a panel support of the fenestration unit, the fenestration unit having a bolt that is slidably attached to the panel for movement between a retracted position and an extended position relative to the panel for selectively engaging with the panel support, and a method of operation (Col. 8 Lines 32-43) comprising:
providing a first member configured to be fixedly attached to the panel support, the first member having a first opening defining an axis, the first member including at least one first engagement feature;
providing a second member that includes a strike head and an insert projection that projects from an underside of the strike head, the insert projection including at least one second engagement feature, the strike head extending away from the insert projection to cover over the at least one second engagement feature, the insert projection at least partly defining a second opening configured to receive the bolt when in the extended position to secure the panel to the panel support;
selecting one of a first position for the insert projection in the first opening along the axis and a second position for the insert projection in the second opening along the axis; and
inserting the insert projection in the selected one of the first position and the second position, the at least one second engagement feature configured to engage with the at least one first engagement feature for retaining the insert projection in the first position and, alternatively, in the second position along the axis (see above rejections of claims 1-9 and 12).
Singh is silent on a method of manufacturing said adjustable bolt receiver.
However, Edlin describes a method of manufacturing components for use with a fenestration unit by means of molding (Para. 0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use molding as the means of manufacturing the first member (300 Figure 15) and the second member (600 Figure 15) of Singh’s adjustable bolt receiver, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to use molding for its low-cost at high manufacturing volume.
With regards to claim 16, Singh in view of Edlin teaches the method of claim 15, wherein providing the first member (300 Figure 15) includes molding the first member (Para. 0080 – Edlin).
With regards to claim 17, Singh in view of Edlin teaches the method of claim 15, wherein providing the second member (600 Figure 15) includes molding the second member (Para. 0080 – Edlin).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Baczuk (US-9404295-B2). All citations refer to the Singh reference unless otherwise noted.
With regards to claim 18, Singh discloses an adjustable bolt receiver (Figure 14) that includes:
a first member configured to be fixedly attached to a sill, the first member having a first opening that extends along the axis, the first member including at least one array of ridges and slots; and
a second member that includes a strike head and an insert projection that projects from the strike head, the insert projection being receivable in the first opening in a first position along the axis and, alternatively, in a second position along the axis, the second member including at least one flange that is removably engaged within one of the slots of the array in the first position and in another of the slots of the array in the second position, the insert projection at least partly defining a second opening configured to receive a bolt when in an extended position to secure a panel to a panel support (see above rejections of claims 1-9 and 12).
Singh does not disclose a fenestration unit for use with the adjustable bolt receiver.
However, Baczuk discloses a fenestration unit (104 Figure 1) comprising:
a panel (110 Figure 1) with a bolt (152 Figure 5) that is slidably attached thereto for movement between a retracted position (Figure 5) an extended position (Figure 6) relative to the panel;
a frame (102 Figure 1) that supports the panel for sliding movement within the frame along an axis (horizontal axis shown by arrows of Figure 5), the frame including a sill (114 Figure 1); and
a bolt receiver (174 Figure 3) configured to be fixedly attached to the sill.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Singh’s adjustable bolt receiver in place of Baczuk’s bolt receiver, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to use Singh’s adjustable bolt receiver in order to gain the benefit of adjustability over Baczuk’s static bolt receiver.
Therefore, Singh in view of Baczuk teaches a first member configured to be fixedly attached to the sill, the first member having a first opening that extends along the axis, the first member including at least one array of ridges and slots; and
a second member that includes a strike head and an insert projection that projects from the strike head, the insert projection being receivable in the first opening in a first position along the axis and, alternatively, in a second position along the axis, the second member including at least one flange that is removably engaged within one of the slots of the array in the first position and in another of the slots of the array in the second position, the insert projection at least partly defining a second opening configured to receive the bolt when in the extended position to secure the panel to the panel support.
With regards to claim 19, Singh in view of Baczuk teaches the fenestration unit of claim 18, wherein the first member and the second member are symmetrical about the axis (see above rejection of claim 8).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Baczuk in further view of Ohrstrom. All citations refer to the Singh reference unless otherwise noted.
With regards to claim 20, Singh in view of Baczuk teaches the fenestration unit of claim 18.
Singh does not disclose that the first member (300 Figure 15) includes a snap-fit projection.
Singh instead discloses that the first member includes alternate attachment features (365 Figure 15) for attaching to a sill.
However, Ohrstrom teaches a fenestration unit comprising a first member (500 Figure 24) comprising a snap-fit projection (532 Figure 24) that is resiliently flexible for snap-fitting into a sill (Para. 0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Singh’s attachment features with Ohrstrom’s snap-fit projection, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to use Ohrstrom’s snap-fit projection to allow a tool-free attachment of Singh’s first member to Baczuk’s sill.
Therefore, Singh in view of Baczuk in further view of Ohrstrom teaches that the first member includes a support head (360 Figure 15) and a base extension (320 Figure 15) that extends from the support head, the base extension being tubular with the first opening (350 Figure 15) extending therethrough, the base extension including a snap-fit projection (532 Figure 24 – Ohrstrom) that is spaced apart from the support head to define a gap therebetween, the snap-fit projection being resiliently flexible relative to the support head for snap-fitting the sill in the gap between the snap-fi projection and the support head (as shown Figure 1 – Baczuk).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of applicant's device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the claimed invention. With regards to claim 4, Singh discloses the adjustable bolt receiver of claim 1, wherein the first member includes a lip, wherein the strike head overlaps the lip in the first position and in the second position. However, the prior art does not teach wherein the first member includes a lip that surrounds the first opening, wherein the strike head surrounds the second opening, and wherein the strike head overlaps the lip and entirely covers over a periphery of the first opening in the first position and in the second position. Therefore, such an arrangement is not taught by the prior art, nor can the Examiner can find teaching or motivation to suggest such a modification to one of ordinary skill in the art without fundamentally altering the principles of operation of the device or otherwise relying upon the benefit of impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Noah Horowitz, whose telephone number is (571)272-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00AM - 7:00 PM.
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, Kristina Fulton, can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/NOAH HOROWITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights