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 § 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) 36-39, 53, 55, 56, 58, 136-138, and 141 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2017/0240738 to Ehrlichmann et al. (“Ehrlichmann”).
Regarding claim 36, Ehrlichmann discloses a fenestration assembly (Figs. 4-10) comprising: a sash or a frame (par 0143), the sash or a frame comprising a first lineal member; a second lineal member; a third lineal member, wherein the third lineal member is connected to the second lineal member and the first lineal member; and a fourth lineal member, wherein the fourth lineal member is connected to the second lineal member and the first lineal member (par 0143 discloses a window frame including stiles and rails, the rails forming first and second lineal members and the stiles forming third and fourth lineal members); wherein at least one of the first lineal member, the second lineal member, the third lineal member, and the fourth lineal member comprise a first lineal extrusion at least partially formed with a first composition (shaded portions of Figs. 4-10; see also par 0148, 0151, 0153-0155); the first composition comprising at least 5 wt. % fibers (par 055 and claim 1); and a first polymer resin (par 0056; claim 1); wherein at least one of the first lineal member, the second lineal member, the third lineal member, and the fourth lineal member comprise a second lineal extrusion at least partially formed with a second composition (unshaded areas in Figs. 4-10); the second composition comprising a second polymer resin (par 083, 0151, 0153-0154; claim 50); and wherein portions at least partially formed with the first composition exhibit less thermal bow than portions at least partially formed with the second composition. Where the claimed and prior art products are identi-cal or substantially identical in structure or composi-tion, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either antici-pation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 37, Ehrlichmann discloses that the at least 5 wt. % fibers comprising glass fibers (par 0041).
Regarding claim 38, Ehrlichmann discloses that the first composition further comprising at least 10 wt. % glass fibers (par 0055 discloses 2-80%).
Regarding claim 39, Ehrlichmann discloses that the first composition further comprising at least 30 wt. % glass fibers (par 0055 discloses 2-80%).
Regarding claim 53, Ehrlichmann discloses a fenestration assembly (Fig. 4) comprising: a lineal extrusion 300, wherein the lineal extrusion defines one or more interior hollows, the lineal extrusion comprising an interior portion, wherein the interior portion (portion including 432) is adjacent an interior side of the fenestration assembly; an exterior portion (right side with portion 320), wherein the exterior portion is adjacent an exterior side of the fenestration assembly; a middle portion (portion 308 including hollow portions), wherein the middle portion interconnects the exterior portion and the interior portion; and a first composition (shaded portion of Fig. 4, see also par 0148, 0151, 0153-0155), the first composition comprising at least 5 wt. % fibers (par 0055; claim 1); and a first polymer resin (par 0056; claim 1); a second composition (unshaded areas in Figs. 4), the second composition comprising a second polymer resin; wherein the second composition is different than the first composition (par 083, 0151, 0153-0154; claim 50); and wherein at least one of the interior portion, the middle portion, and the exterior portion (portion including 432) comprises greater than 50% by volume of the first composition (shaded portion) and another of the interior portion, the middle portion (portion 308 including hollow portions), and the exterior portion comprises greater than 50% by volume of the second composition (unshaded portion).
Regarding claim 55, Ehrlichmann discloses that one of the interior portion, the middle portion, and the exterior portion (portion including 432) comprises greater than 50% by volume of the first composition and the remaining two of the interior portion (portion including 320), the middle portion (308 including hollow portions), and the exterior portion comprises greater than 50% by volume of the second composition.
Regarding claim 56, Ehrlichmann discloses that the interior portion, the middle portion, and the exterior portion each comprise at least 5% of the total interior to exterior thickness of the lineal extrusion.
Regarding claim 58, Ehrlichmann discloses that the at least 5 wt. % fibers are glass fibers (par 0055 discloses 2-80%).
Regarding claim 136, Ehrlichmann discloses a fenestration assembly comprising: a lineal extrusion (Fig. 4), wherein the lineal extrusion defines one or more interior hollows, the lineal extrusion comprising a single-wall glass lip 328; wherein the single-wall glass lip is adjacent an exterior side of the fenestration assembly; wherein the single-wall glass lip at least partially defines a receiving channel (defined between 328 and 306) for an insulating glazing unit; a first composition (shaded portion), the first composition comprising at least 5 wt. % fibers (par 0055; claim 1); and a first polymer resin (par 0056; claim 1); and wherein the single-wall glass lip comprises greater than 50% by volume of the first composition.
Regarding claim 137, Ehrlichmann discloses that the at least 5 wt. % fibers (par 0055 discloses 2-80%) are glass fibers (par 0041).
Regarding claim 138, Ehrlichmann discloses that the first composition further comprising at least 10 wt. % glass fibers (par 0055 discloses 2-80%).
Regarding claim 141, Ehrlichmann discloses that the lineal extrusion further comprising a second composition (unshaded portion), wherein the second composition is different than the first composition (par 083, 0151, 0153-0154; claim 50).
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) 67 and 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrlichmann.
Regarding claim 67, Ehrlichmann does not disclose that the lineal extrusion is at least 30 inches in length. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the structure of Ehrlichmann to have at least 30 inches in length since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 68, Ehrlichmann does not expressly disclose that the lineal extrusion at a length of 30 inches exhibits thermal bow of less than 0.06 inches upon thermal cycling with a peak to trough temperature change of at least 180 degrees Fahrenheit. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the structure of Ehrlichmann to have at least 30 inches in length since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, where the claimed and prior art products are identi-cal or substantially identical in structure or composi-tion, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either antici-pation or obviousness has been established because the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01.
Claim(s) 149 and 151 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrlichmann in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0308900 to Choi (“Choi”).
Regarding claim 149, Ehrlichmann does not disclose that the single-wall glass lip is thicker than adjoining wall portions of the lineal extrusion.
Choi discloses a fenestration assembly wherein a single-wall glass lip (Choi 13) is thicker than adjoining wall portions of a lineal extrusion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fenestration assembly of Ehrlichmann to have the single-wall glass lip is thicker than adjoining wall portions of the lineal extrusion as taught in Choi with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably increaset the strength of the lip.
Regarding claim 151, Ehrlichmann does not disclose that a wall defining an exterior wall of the lineal extrusion is thicker than other wall portions of the lineal extrusion.
Choi discloses a fenestration assembly wherein a wall (Choi 13) defining an exterior wall of the lineal extrusion is thicker than other wall portions of the lineal extrusion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fenestration assembly of Ehrlichmann to have a wall defining an exterior wall of the lineal extrusion is thicker than other wall portions of the lineal extrusion as taught in Choi with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably increase the strength of the wall.
Claim(s) 150 and 153 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrlichmann in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,850,168 to Thorn (“Thorn”).
Regarding claim 150, Ehrlichmann does not disclose that the single-wall glass lip includes a tapered portion such that a base of the single-wall glass lip is thicker than a tip of the single-wall glass lip.
Thorn discloses a fenestration assembly wherein a single-wall glass lip (Thorn 34) includes a tapered portion such that a base of the single-wall glass lip is thicker than a tip of the single-wall glass lip.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fenestration assembly of Ehrlichmann to have the single-wall glass lip includes a tapered portion such that a base of the single-wall glass lip is thicker than a tip of the single-wall glass lip as taught in Thorn with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably provide a decorative shadow line around the window.
Regarding claim 153, Ehrlichmann does not disclose that a base the single-wall glass lip intersects with another wall portion of the lineal extrusion forming a joint, wherein a surface feature is disposed over an exterior side of the joint.
Thorn discloses a fenestration assembly wherein a base (Thorn 30) the single-wall glass lip intersects with another wall portion of the lineal extrusion forming a joint, wherein a surface feature (curved rebate) is disposed over an exterior side of the joint.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fenestration assembly of Ehrlichmann to have a base the single-wall glass lip intersects with another wall portion of the lineal extrusion forming a joint, wherein a surface feature is disposed over an exterior side of the joint as taught in Thorn with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably provide a decorative shadow line around the window.
Claim(s) 152 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrlichmann in view of U.S. Publication No. 2025/0320766 to Schulzen (“Schulzen”).
Regarding claim 152, Ehrlichmann does not disclose that a base of the single-wall glass lip intersects with another wall portion of the lineal extrusion forming a joint, wherein the joint is thicker than other intersections between other wall members of the lineal extrusion.
Schulzen discloses a fenestration assembly wherein a base (horizontal portion of 10 adjacent thickened portion where leader line for reference 10 is pointing) the single-wall glass lip intersects with another wall portion (vertical portion of 10 adjacent thickened portion where leader line for reference 10 is pointing) of the lineal extrusion forming a joint, wherein the joint 10 is thicker than other intersections between other wall members of the lineal extrusion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fenestration assembly of Ehrlichmann to have a base the single-wall glass lip intersects with another wall portion of the lineal extrusion forming a joint, wherein the joint is thicker than other intersections between other wall members of the lineal extrusion as taught in Schulzen with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably reinforce the joint.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 54 and 157 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art, alone or in obvious combination absent hindsight, discloses applicant’s invention of a fenestration assembly comprising, inter alia at least two of the interior portion, the middle portion, and the exterior portion comprises greater than 50% by volume of the first composition and the remaining one of the interior portion, the middle portion, and the exterior portion comprises greater than 50% by volume of the second composition or wherein both the interior portion and the exterior portion comprise greater than 50% by volume of the first composition, and wherein the middle portion comprises greater than 50% by volume of the second composition. In the instant case, the closest prior art to Ehrlichmann (applied above) discloses only an interior portion (shaded portion in Fig. 4) that comprises greater than 50% by volume of the first composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 of the Remarks, the applicant argues with respect to claim 36 that Ehrlichmann does not disclose portions at least partially formed with the first composition exhibit less thermal bow than portions at least partially formed with the second composition. However, where the claimed and prior art products are identi-cal or substantially identical in structure or composi-tion, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either antici-pation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01. In the instant case, Ehrlichmann discloses each structural element of claim and material composition as recited in claim 1; therefore, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. Moreover, it is generally understood in the art that addition of fibers to resin improve thermal stability (see for example, par 0056 in US20070148429.
With respect to claim 53, the applicant argues on page 9-10 that Ehrlichmann does not disclose that the at least one of the interior portion, the middle portion, and the exterior portion comprises greater than 50% by volume of the first composition and another of the interior portion, the middle portion, and the exterior portion comprises greater than 50% by volume of the second composition. The applicant explains that Ehrlichmann at FIG. depicts an extrusion having an interior side that is entirely made from a first composition. The extrusion further includes an exterior side that appears to be made from greater than 50% by volume of the first composition and less than 50% by volume of a second composition (composition 432). However, the rejection defines that interior portion is the shaded portion that includes the composition 432 which is the first composition. The interior portion (shaded portion) thus comprises greater than 50% by volume of the first composition. The exterior portion and middle portion (denoted by unshaded portions) are made entirely from a second composition and thus comprise greater than 50% by volume of the second composition as claimed. Therefore, Ehrlichmann discloses the structure required by the claim.
With respect to claim 136, the applicant argues that Ehrlichmann lacks disclosure of the space defined between single wall area 328 and external wall 306 being configured to receive an insulating glazing unit. In response to applicant's argument, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, as here, then it meets the claim. A gap between area 328 and 306 would be able to receive an insulating glazing unit.
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 CHRISTINE T CAJILIG whose telephone number is (571)272-8143. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/CHRISTINE T CAJILIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
