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
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1- 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemette (US 2007/0137119).
Regarding claim 1, Guillemette discloses a frame system 110 of a window fenestration unit 100 comprising:
a frame member 160 configured to attach within a rough opening of a structure and configured to support a panel 130 therein, the frame member 160 extending along a frame longitudinal axis (Fig 1),
the frame member 160 being unitary, the frame member 160 having a cross-sectional profile taken along a transverse axis that is normal to the frame longitudinal axis (Fig 2, 3),
the cross-sectional profile defining a total depth of the frame member measured along the transverse axis, the cross-sectional profile including a panel support portion and an exterior lip protrusion that are arranged along the transverse axis (annotated Fig 2, Fig 3);
the exterior lip protrusion projecting from the panel support portion along the transverse axis and terminating at an exterior lip end (annotated Fig 2); and
the exterior lip protrusion having a lip depth measured along the transverse axis from the panel support portion to the exterior lip end, the lip depth being at least twenty percent (20%) of the total depth of the frame member 160 (annotated Fig 2). Examiner wants to note that based on the figures, it is obviously at least 20% because the drawings show that it appears to be approximately 50%. It would have been an obvious engineering design to have the lip depth as claimed according to the thickness of the wall and the desired size of the frame system.
PNG
media_image1.png
1126
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Guillemette discloses as discussed in claim 1, but does not disclose the lip depth is more than thirty percent (30%) or forty percent (40%) of the total depth of the frame member. However, it would have been an obvious engineering design to have the lip depth as claimed according to the thickness of the wall and the desired size of the frame system.
Regarding claim 4, Guillemette discloses the frame system 110 is configured for a casement window fenestration unit 100 with the panel 130 pivotally attached to the frame system for movement between an open position and a closed position relative to the frame member 160 (Fig 1), the panel support portion including a seal surface for sealing with the panel in the closed position, the exterior lip protrusion integrally attached to the panel support portion at the seal surface (annotated Fig 2).
Regarding claim 6, Guillemette discloses the frame member 160 includes an inner side that faces the panel and an outer side that faces away from the panel, the frame member 160 including a fin that is integrally attached to the outer side and that projects from the outer side (annotated Fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, Guillemette discloses as discussed in claim 6, but does not disclose the fin projects away from the panel support portion. However, it would have been an obvious engineering design to have the fin as claimed according to the type of wall where the frame system is going to be installed.
Regarding claim 8, Guillemette discloses the fin projects away from the exterior lip protrusion (annotated Fig 2).
Regarding claim 9, Guillemette discloses the cross-sectional profile is hollow with an outer profile wall and a planar internal rib that extends between opposing internal surfaces of the outer profile wall (annotated Fig 2).
Regarding claim 10, Guillemette discloses the planar internal rib is disposed within the exterior lip protrusion (annotated Fig 2).
Regarding claim 11, Guillemette discloses the planar internal rib is a first rib, wherein the cross-sectional profile includes a second rib that is planar and that extends between the opposing internal surfaces of the outer profile wall, the first rib and the second rib being spaced apart at a distance along the transverse axis (annotated Fig 2).
Regarding claim 12, Guillemette discloses the first rib and the second rib are disposed within the exterior lip protrusion (annotated Fig 2).
Regarding claim 13, Guillemette discloses the frame member 160 is constructed of a polymeric material (Par 0012, 0029).
Regarding claim 14, Guillemette discloses the basic claimed method. The claimed method steps would have been obvious method of manufacturing the frame system of a window fenestration unit. The steps can obviously be seen in the above rejections of the apparatus claims since the method claims merely recite the apparatus claims in method form.
Regarding claim 15, Guillemette discloses the step of forming the frame member includes extruding the frame member (Par 0029).
Regarding claim 16, Guillemette discloses a window fenestration unit comprising a panel 130 (Fig 1).
Guillemette discloses the claimed frame system, the limitations of claim 16 towards the frame system can be seen above in the rejection of claim 1.
Guillemette discloses a lip depth, but does not disclose the lip depth is at least forty percent (40%) of the total depth of the frame member. However, it would have been an obvious engineering design to have the lip depth as claimed according to the thickness of the wall and the desired size of the frame system.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Guillemette discloses the claimed window fenestration unit, the limitations of claims 17 and 18 can be seen above in the rejection of claim 4.
5. `Claim(s) 1, 5, 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siudzinski (US 6,318,036).
Regarding claim 1, Siudzinki discloses a frame system 12 of a window fenestration unit 10 comprising:
a frame member 16 configured to attach within a rough opening of a structure and configured to support a panel 80 therein, the frame member 16 extending along a frame longitudinal axis (Fig 1, 3),
the frame member 16 being unitary, the frame member 16 having a cross-sectional profile taken along a transverse axis that is normal to the frame longitudinal axis (Fig 3),
the cross-sectional profile defining a total depth of the frame member measured along the transverse axis, the cross-sectional profile including a panel support portion and an exterior lip protrusion that are arranged along the transverse axis (annotated Fig 3);
the exterior lip protrusion projecting from the panel support portion along the transverse axis and terminating at an exterior lip end (annotated Fig 3); and
the exterior lip protrusion having a lip depth measured along the transverse axis from the panel support portion to the exterior lip end, the lip depth being at least twenty percent (20%) of the total depth of the frame member 16 (annotated Fig 3). Examiner wants to note that based on the figures, it is obviously at least 20% because the drawings show that it appears to be approximately 50%. It would have been an obvious engineering design to have the lip depth as claimed according to the thickness of the wall and the desired size of the frame system.
PNG
media_image2.png
775
870
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Siudzinki discloses the frame system 12 is configured for a slider window fenestration unit (Fig 1), the panel support portion includes a bead engagement feature for attaching a bead member to the frame member 16; and wherein the exterior lip protrusion is integrally attached to the panel support portion at the bead engagement feature (annotated Fig 3).
Regarding claim 16, Siudzinki discloses a window fenestration unit comprising a panel 80 (Fig 1).
Siudzinki discloses the claimed frame system, the limitations of claim 16 towards the frame system can be seen above in the rejection of claim 1.
Siudzinki discloses a lip depth, but does not disclose the lip depth is at least forty percent (40%) of the total depth of the frame member. However, it would have been an obvious engineering design to have the lip depth as claimed according to the thickness of the wall and the desired size of the frame system.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Siudzinki discloses the claimed window fenestration unit, the limitations of claims 19 and 20 can be seen above in the rejection of claim 5.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “the description of the frame members of Guillemette and Siudzinski are silent as to a frame member with an exterior lip protrusion having a lip depth of the proportions set forth in independent claims 1, 14 and 16. It is only the drawings of these references, which are relied upon for the rejection. However, neither Guillemette nor the Siudzinski references state that the drawings are to scale. Thus, according to the MPEP, there is no basis for the rejections of claims 1, 14 and 16”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that nowhere in the rejection there is an indication that the drawings are to scale. Examiner would like to point out that precisely because neither Guillemette nor Siudzinski indicates that the drawings are to scale the rejection is an obvious rejection noting that it appears that the lip depth is approximately 50% and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lip depth to have the proportions as claimed according to the thickness of the wall and the desired size of the frame system.
Conclusion
7. 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 ADRIANA FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-8281. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5PM MONDAY-FRIDAY.
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.
/ADRIANA FIGUEROA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
05/12/2026
Prosecution Insights