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 § 103
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 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, 2, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,293,168 to Pirone in view of GB 2 194 276 A Davenport further in view of US 2017/0332818 A1 to Jones.
Regarding claim 1, Pirone discloses a compression framing system (Fig.2) configured to engage with opposing mounting surfaces (Fig.1) of a building opening, the compression framing system having at least one compression frame (Fig.2), each compression frame comprising: a first compression arm (1, left, Fig.2) and a second compression arm (right, Fig.2), each compression arm having: a body member (hollow tube of 1 and internal tube 4) having an inner body end (end of 1 toward the center of the frame, Fig.2) and an outer body end (ends of 1 attached to 2) associated with the inner body end; and a foot (2) configured to engage with the outer body end of the body member (Fig.2), the foot (2) being further configured to engage directly with a corresponding opposing mounting surface of the opposing mounting surfaces (Fig.1); an inner support beam (5) configured to engage with the inner body end of the first compression arm (5 engages with tube 4 within 1) and the inner body end of the second compression arm (5 engages with the other tube 4 within 1) to secure the first compression arm to the second compression arm (Fig.2); and an expansion controller (threaded portions of 4 and 5) associated with the body member of the first compression arm (Fig.2); wherein the expansion controller is configured to selectively adjust a separation distance between the foot of the first compression arm and the foot of the second compression arm (the distance adjusts by turning the threaded portions).
Pirone does not disclose a shock bracket configured to engage with the body member; wherein each shock bracket is configured to engage with a protective structure to secure the protective structure to the opposing mounting surfaces.
Pirone also does not disclose wherein the foot is a pivot foot.
Davenport discloses a compression frame (6) having a shock bracket (11) configured to engage with the body member; wherein each shock bracket is configured to engage with a protective structure (2) to secure the protective structure to the opposing mounting surfaces (Fig.2).
Jones discloses wherein each shoe is pivotally engaged with one of the compression arms (Fig. 1a-1c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the compression frame of Pirone with a bracket as taught by Davenport so to enable a user to secure a security panel to a building opening thereby enabling the closure of the opening without the need to use mechanical fasteners thereby preserving the structural framing of the opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have pivotally attached the foot to the compression arm as taught by Jones so to enable the compression frame to securely engage the opening even in an instance when the compression frame is not installed exactly perpendicular to the framing members of the opening.
Regarding claim 2, Davenport discloses wherein each shock bracket is configured to reduce a shock exerted on an attached compression frame by an impact made to the protective structure (an impact is capable of being spread through the structure and through the multiple brackets, thereby capable of reducing the shown to the frame).
Regarding claim 8, Pirone discloses a compression framing system (Fig.2) configured to engage with opposing mounting surfaces (Fig.1) of a building opening, the compression framing system having at least one compression frame (Fig.2), each compression frame comprising: a first compression arm (1 on left, Fig.2) and a second compression arm (1 on right, Fig.2), each compression arm having: a body member (hollow tube 1 with inner tube 4); and a foot (2) configured to engage with the body member (Fig.2), the foot being further configured to engage directly with a corresponding opposing mounting surface (Fig.1) of the opposing mounting surfaces, wherein the engagement of the foot with the body member allows a corresponding portion of the foot to be selectively rotated (foot threads into the body, allowing rotation); and an expansion controller (thread on rod 5) associated with the first compression arm and the second compression arm; wherein the expansion controller is configured to selectively adjust a separation distance between the foot of the first compression arm and the foot of the second compression arm (turning along threads of rod 5 allow distance to be altered).
Pirone does not disclose a bracket assembly configured to engage with the body member; wherein each bracket assembly is configured to engage with a protective structure to secure the protective structure to the opposing mounting surfaces.
Pirone also does not disclose wherein the foot is a pivot foot.
Davenport discloses a compression frame (6) having a shock bracket (11) configured to engage with the body member; wherein each shock bracket is configured to engage with a protective structure (2) to secure the protective structure to the opposing mounting surfaces (Fig.2).
Jones discloses wherein each shoe is pivotally engaged with one of the compression arms (Fig. 1a-1c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the compression frame of Pirone with a bracket as taught by Davenport so to enable a user to secure a security panel to a building opening thereby enabling the closure of the opening without the need to use mechanical fasteners thereby preserving the structural framing of the opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have pivotally attached the foot to the compression arm as taught by Jones so to enable the compression frame to securely engage the opening even in an instance when the compression frame is not installed exactly perpendicular to the framing members of the opening.
Claim(s) 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,293,168 to Pirone in view of GB 2 194 276 A Davenport.
Regarding claim 13, Pirone discloses a compression framing system (Fig.2) configured to engage with opposing mounting surfaces (Fig.1) of a building opening, the compression framing system having at least one compression frame (Fig.2), each compression frame comprising: a first compression arm (1 on left with internal tube 4) and a second compression arm (1 on the right with internal tube 4), each compression arm having: a body member (1); and a surface mount (2) associated with the body member, the surface mount being configured to engage directly with a corresponding opposing mounting surface (Fig.1) of the opposing mounting surfaces; an expansion controller (5 with threads and inner tube 4) associated with the first compression arm and the second compression arm; wherein the expansion controller is configured to selectively adjust a separation distance between the surface mount of the first compression arm and the surface mount of the second compression arm (members are moved along the threads to alter the distance). wherein each shock bracket is configured to engage with a protective structure to secure the protective structure to the opposing mounting surfaces.
Pirone does not disclose a shock bracket configured to engage with the body member; wherein each shock bracket is configured to engage with a protective structure to secure the protective structure to the opposing mounting surfaces.
Davenport discloses a compression frame (6) having a shock bracket (11) configured to engage with the body member; wherein each shock bracket is configured to engage with a protective structure (2) to secure the protective structure to the opposing mounting surfaces (Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the compression frame of Pirone with a bracket as taught by Davenport so to enable a user to secure a security panel to a building opening thereby enabling the closure of the opening without the need to use mechanical fasteners thereby preserving the structural framing of the opening.
Regarding claim 17, Davenport discloses wherein the compression framing system comprises two compression frames (top and bottom of Fig.1), wherein a first compression frame of the two compression frames is configured to be parallel with a second compression frame of the two compression frames (Fig.1) upon engagement of the compression framing system with the opposing mounting surfaces (Fig. 1 and 2).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6-8, 13, and 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/173,601 (reference application; the application has been allowed but has yet to be published as a patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the elements of the instant claims are included within the co-pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 9-12, 14-16, and 18-20 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 and the double patenting rejection has been overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose the combination of elements forming the compression framing system, specifically the relationship between the compression arms, the brackets, and the pivot feet/surface mount. The claims deemed allowable above, claims 3, 6, 7, 9, 14, 18, and 20, all further limit either the pivot foot, the expansion controller, or the shock bracket in a way which is not taught in the relevant areas of the prior art. One would not have been motivated to combine taught elements of prior art in order to form the compression framing system of the present invention. Further, the prior art of record does not disclose the combination of the compression framing system including the security glass frame.
Regarding the pivot foot, the prior art of record would not have been motivated to form the pivot foot with mounting tabs engaging the body, the mounting tabs engaging a fixed pivot axis, and a pivot shoe pivotally secured to the fixed pivot axis in addition to the recited elements of the compression framing element itself. Similarly, the prior art fails to disclose details of the shock bracket in combination with the elements of the compression framing element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635