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 1-7 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the reinforced material" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims are examined as best understood.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the window" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims are examined as best understood.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0337148).
Regarding claim 1, Carson et al. discloses a curtain wall (Fig. 13) comprising: a frame (10) made of an material; a knife plate (100) affixed to an exterior facing surface of the frame; the knife plate (100) including an anchor (212) extending away from the reinforced material into the frame, the anchor being configured to secure the knife plate to the frame; a gasket (420) disposed along the knife plate; a glass sheet (400) disposed on the gasket; a cavity (approximate 20), formed between the window (200 and 400) and the knife plate; and a structural silicone (20) disposed within the cavity in sealing contact with window (200 and 400) and the knife plate. Carson et al. discloses the frame made from a material as set forth above but does not disclose the material as being organic and recyclable. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a frame that comprised of an organic recyclable material that provided sufficient support and was cost effective, since it has been held to be 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There will be no new or unpredictable results achieved from using any material, organic or inorganic, that was suitable for the construction of a window frame.
Regarding claim 2, Carson et al. discloses a groove (approximate 212) formed therein, the groove receiving the anchor (212) therein; securing the anchor to the frame.
Regarding claim 3, Carson et al. discloses the groove (approximate 212) has a substantially T shape (Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 4, Carson et al. discloses the anchor (212) has a substantially T shape (Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 5, Carson et al. discloses the knife plate (100) includes a removeable stop (bead approximate 20) extending from a base (214) of knife plate (100) and a body (212 approximate 214) spaced from the removeable stop; the cavity (approximate 20) being formed between the removeable stop and the body.
Regarding claim 6, Carson et al. discloses the knife plate (100) is formed form extruded aluminum (Para [0034]).
Regarding claim 7, Carson et al. discloses the sheet of glass (400) being a vacuum insulated glass (Para [0065]).
Regarding claim 8, Carson et al. discloses a curtain wall (Fig. 13) comprising a frame (10) made of a material; a fiber reinforced material (100) affixed to an exterior facing surface of the frame; an anchor (212) affixed to a non-exterior facing surface of the frame and the fiber reinforced material; a gasket (420) disposed along at least an exterior facing surface of the fiber reinforced material; a window affixed to the gasket (400); a cavity (approximate 20) is formed between the window, the fiber reinforced plastic (100) and the anchor (212); and a structural silicone (20) disposed within the cavity in sealing contact with window, the fiber reinforced material and the anchor (Fig. 13). Carson et al. discloses the frame made from a material as set forth above but does not disclose the material as being organic and recyclable. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a frame that comprised of an organic recyclable material that provided sufficient support and was cost effective, since it has been held to be 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There will be no new or unpredictable results achieved from using any material, organic or inorganic, that was suitable for the construction of a window frame.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J BUCKLE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm EST.
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 5712726754. 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.
/JAMES J BUCKLE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights