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.
Claim7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7: It is unclear how one of the legs is shorter. There are only two legs claimed that make up the first section of the first flashing element. There is no mention of lengths or different sized legs.
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) 1, 4-10, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonneborn et al. (US Patent No 4,543,753) (“Sonneborn”) in view of Mortensen (WO 95/28535).
Referring to claim 1: Sonneborn teaches a flashing assembly for use between two roof windows, which are mounted side by side in an inclined roof structure and which each comprises a frame and a pane element, said flashing assembly comprising a first flashing element (item 2) configured for extending along a frame member of the frame of a first roof window and a second flashing element (item 3) configured for extending along a frame member of the frame of a second roof window, each of the first flashing element and the second flashing element comprising a first section and a second section, said first section extending along a width axis of a corresponding the flashing element, being configured for extending between the first roof window and the second roof window, and having an interior side configured for facing the inclined roof structure, and said second section extending in an exterior direction along a height axis of a corresponding the flashing element and having an interior side configured for facing the frame of one of the first and second roof windows, said second section having a first edge at the first section and a second edge located at a distance from the first section measured along the height axis (figure 3). Sonneborn does not teach the first section of the first flashing element comprises two legs extending along the width axis and being located at a distance from each other measured along the height axis thereby forming a pocket between the two legs. However, Mortenson teaches the first section of the first flashing element comprises two legs extending along the width axis and being located at a distance from each other measured along the height axis thereby forming a pocket between the two legs (item 14b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Mortensen with the pocket type flashing elements taught by Sonneborn in order to reduce the number of components needed to flash between adjacent windows. Additionally, it would have been obvious to replace the entirety of the flashing units (items 13 and 16 in figure 7) in order to allow for width adjustability. They do not specifically teach the first section of the second flashing element fits into the pocket of the first flashing element. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that replacing the connection of Sonneborn with the pocket connection taught by Mortensen would result in the first section of the second flashing element fits into the pocket of the first flashing element.
Referring to claim 4: Sonneborn and Mortensen teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Sonneborn teaches where both of the first and second flashing elements are made from sheet metal (col 1, lines 41-45).
Referring to claim 5: Sonneborn and Mortensen teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Sonneborn teaches where the first and second flashing elements are side flashing elements configured for extending along a side frame member of a corresponding roof window (figure 1).
Referring to claim 6: Sonneborn and Mortensen teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Sonneborn and Mortensen do not specifically teach where the first and second flashing elements are one of the following: (i) top flashing elements configured for extending along a top frame member of a corresponding roof, (ii) bottom flashing elements configured for extending along bottom frame member of a corresponding roof window, and (iii) gutter flashing elements configured for use between roof windows arranged above each other. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that Sonneborn teaches the flashing elements are gutter flashing elements and would have first and second flashing elements when replaced by the two component flashing of Mortensen. This would allow for adjustable width flashing to accommodate different widths of the gutters.
Referring to claim 7: Sonneborn and Mortensen teach all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Mortensen teaches where the first section of the second flashing element has a width measured along the width axis from the second section to an edge opposite the second section, where the pocket of the first section of the first flashing element has a depth measured along the width axis from the second section to an edge of the shorter of the two legs, and where said width of the first section of the second flashing element is at least 1.1 times the depth of the pocket (item 13 in figure 6 being the first section of the second flashing element). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to recognize that the first section of Mortensen would correspond with a first section of the flashing elements of Sonneborn and would be greater than 1.1 of the length of the pocket in order to provide greater adjustability while maintaining weather resistance.
Referring to claim 8: Sonneborn and Mortensen teach the limitations of the flashing assembly according to claim 1. Additionally, Sonneborn teaches a group of roof windows including at least two roof windows mounted side by side in an inclined roof structure (figures 1 and 6).
Referring to claim 9: Sonneborn and Mortensen teach all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. They do not specifically teach the total width of the first sections of the two flashing elements when the first section of the second flashing element is inserted fully into a pocket of the first section of the first flashing element is smaller than the distance between the two roof windows. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the total width less than the width between windows in order to allow the flashing to fit between the adjacent windows.
Referring to claim 10: Sonneborn and Mortensen teach a method for mounting a flashing assembly between two roof windows, which are mounted side by side in an inclined roof structure and which each comprises a frame and a pane element, said method comprising: arranging a first flashing element so that it extends along a frame member of the frame of a first roof window with a first section extending between the two roof windows, with an interior side of the first section facing the inclined roof structure, with a second section extending along a height axis in an exterior direction, and with an interior side of the second section facing the frame of the first roof window, arranging a second flashing element so that it extends along a frame member of the frame of a second roof window with a first section extending between the two roof windows, with an interior side of the first section facing the inclined roof structure, with a second section extending in an exterior direction, and with an interior side of the second section facing the frame of the second roof window, wherein the first section of the second flashing element is inserted into a pocket of the first section of the first flashing element, said pocket being formed by two legs extending along a width axis and being located at a distance from each other measured along the height axis (figures 1 and 6 of Sonneborn and Figure 2 of Mortensen). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that Sonneborn and Mortensen teach the assembly method with the device as described and rejected in claim 1.
Referring to claim 15: Sonneborn and Mortensen teach all the limitations of claim 4 as noted above. Additionally, Sonneborn teaches both of the first and second flashing elements are made from aluminum or copper (col 1, lines 41-45).
Referring to claim 20: Sonneborn and Mortensen teach the flashing assembly of claim 5 as noted above. Additionally, Sonneborn teaches a group of roof windows including at least two roof windows mounted side by side in an inclined roof structure (figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the flashing assembly of claim 5 on the window assembly of Sonneborn in order to waterproof between adjacent windows.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 11-14, and 16-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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 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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635