DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-19 as filed on 06/12/2026 are pending and herewith considered as indicated below.
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.
3. Claims 1-19 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.
The term “substantially similar” in Claim 1, line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The language is being interpreted as the same.
The term “properly positioned” in Claim 10, line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “properly positioned” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The language is being interpreted as placed as intended.
The term “properly positioned” in Claim 11, lines 2-3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “properly positioned” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The language is being interpreted as placed as intended.
The term “substantially similar” in Claim 15, lines 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The language is being interpreted as the same.
The term “properly positioned” in Claim 18, lines 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “properly positioned” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The language is being interpreted as placed as intended.
The term “properly positioned” in Claim 19, lines 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “properly positioned” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The language is being interpreted as placed as intended.
In regards to Claims 2-5, 7-8, 12-14 and 16-17, Claims 2-5, 7-8, 12-14 and 16-17 are herein rejected due to dependency on independent claims 1 and 15.
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.
4. Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnich (US 6052957 A) in view of Kant (US 20090193756 A1) and Pandorf (US 20090090062 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Minnich in Figure 1 discloses a method [Col 13, Lines 47-52] of installing a supplemental window apparatus (50) having a substantially non porous sheet (12) [Col 6, Lines 20-26] having a sheet area substantially similar to a window area [Fig 1] defined by interior surfaces (62a-d) [Fig 1] of a window element (72,74) of an existing window (60) [Fig 1] , the window element (72,74) holding a windowpane [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments) the method [Col 13, Lines 47-52] comprising:
attaching one or more mating fasteners (30) coupled to the substantially non porous sheet (12) [Col 6, Lines 20-26] such that there is an air gap dimension [Fig 3] between the sheet (12) and the windowpane [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments).
However, Minnich fails to disclose
attaching one or more pane fasteners to the windowpane;
attaching one or more mating fasteners coupled to the substantially non porous sheet to the one or more pane fasteners, such that there is an air gap dimension between the substantially non porous sheet and the windowpane;
and applying an attachment material to one or more areas of the supplemental window apparatus, the attachment material contacting both the windowpane and the supplemental window apparatus, to further attach the supplemental window apparatus to the windowpane.
Furthermore, Kant discloses applying an attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7] to one or more areas of the supplemental window apparatus (50, Minnich) [Fig 1, Minnich], the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7] contacting both the windowpane [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Minnich] (see examiners comments) (104) [Fig 6] and the supplemental window apparatus (50, Minnich) [Fig 1, Minnich] and (501/502) [Fig 6], to further attach [0045] the supplemental window apparatus (50, Minnich) [Fig 1, Minnich] (501/502) [Fig 6] to the window pane [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Minnich] (see examiners comments) (104) [Fig 6].
Examiners Note: Kant discloses the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7] contacting the supplemental window apparatus (501/502) [Fig 6] and the window pane (104) [Fig 6]
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the supplemental window apparatus as disclosed by Minnich to further include applying an attachment material to one or more areas of the supplemental window apparatus, the attachment material contacting both the windowpane and the supplemental window apparatus, to further attach the supplemental window apparatus to the window pane as disclosed by Kant.
When modified, the supplement window apparatus would include the attachment material to one or more areas of the supplement window apparatus as desired by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, using the attachment material someone with ordinary skill in the art would apply the attachment material to one or more areas of the supplemental window apparatus to further attach the supplemental window apparatus to the window pane. Using the attachment material further limits air inflow/outflow from the edges as desired by the method and apparatus.
Furthermore, Pandorf discloses the method [Fig 1, Minnich] comprising: attaching one or more pane fasteners (24) [0034] [Fig 7A] to the windowpane [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Minnich] (see examiners comments); attaching one or more mating fasteners (30, Minnich) coupled to the substantially non porous sheet (12, Minnich) [Col 6, Lines 20-26] to the one or more pane fasteners (24) [0034] [Fig 7A], such that there is an air gap dimension [Fig 3, Minnich] between the sheet (12, Minnich) and the windowpane [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Minnich] (see examiners comments, Minnich);
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the supplemental window apparatus as disclosed by Minnich to include the pane fasteners as disclosed by Pandorf. When modified, the supplemental window apparatus would further attach one or more mating fasteners coupled to the substantially non porous sheet to the one or more pane fasteners, such that there is an air gap dimension between the sheet and the windowpane. Lastly, including a pane fastener as disclosed by Pandorf further facilitates a securing mechanism to the overall frame.
In regards to Claim 2, Minnich in Fig 1 discloses the method [Col 13, Lines 47-52] of claim 1, Kant discloses wherein the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7] is one or more of an adhesive [0045], a sealant, or a caulk.
In regards to Claim 3, Minnich in Fig 1 discloses the method [Col 13, Lines 47-52] of claim 1 and the supplemental window apparatus (50) [Fig 1]. However, fails to disclose wherein the attachment material provides a load bearing for the installed supplemental window apparatus (50) [Fig 1].
Furthermore, Kant discloses the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7]
Furthermore, the attachment material is not explicitly mentioned as a load bearing mechanism. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify attachment material of Kant to be made of a load bearing in order further seal the supplement window apparatus to the windowpane, 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. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
In regards to Claim 4, Minnich in Fig 1 discloses the method [Col 13, Lines 47-52] of claim 1, the substantially non porous sheet (12) [Col 6, Lines 20-26] and the windowpane [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments). However, fails to disclose wherein the attachment material provides sealing for the supplemental window apparatus to inhibit air movement into or out of the air gap formed between the substantially non porous sheet and the windowpane.
Furthermore, Kant discloses
wherein the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7] provides sealing [0045] for the supplemental window apparatus (50, Minnich) [Fig 1, Minnich] to inhibit air movement into or out of the air gap [See 0045, “the intermittent deployment of adhesive 720 is to allow the pocket of air in between the third layer 503 and the second layer 502 to escape”] formed between the substantially non porous sheet (12, Minnich) [Col 6, Lines 20-26] and the windowpane [Minnich, Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments).
In regards to Claim 5, Minnich discloses in Fig 1 the method [Col 13, Lines 47-52] of claim 4, the substantially non porous sheet (12) [Col 6, Lines 20-26] and the windowpane [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments).
However, fails to disclose wherein the attachment material is applied outward from a seal between the substantially non porous sheet and the windowpane.
Furthermore, Kant discloses wherein the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7]
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment of Kant to be applied outwardly from a seal between the substantially non porous sheet and the windowpane in order to facilitate attachment at the seal, as it has been held that applying a known technique applying an attachment to a known device between the substantially non porous sheet and the windowpane ready for improvement to yield predictable results facilitating attachment is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 (D).
When modified, the attachment material allows for facilitating attachment as intended in [0045, Kant]
In regards to Claim 6, Minnich in Fig 1 discloses the method [Col 13, Lines 47-52] of claim 1, the supplemental window apparatus (50) [Fig 1]
However, fails to disclose wherein the attachment material is applied to one or more of a corner area of the supplemental window apparatus, an edge area of the supplement window apparatus, or both the corner area and the edge area of the supplement window apparatus.
Furthermore, Kant discloses the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7].
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment material of Kant to be applied to wherein the attachment material is applied to one or more of a corner area of the supplemental window apparatus, an edge area of the supplement window apparatus, or both the corner area and the edge area of the supplement window apparatus, as it has been held that applying a known technique (attachment mechanism) to a known device (non porous sheet, supplemental window apparatus) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (attachment) is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 (D).
In regards to Claim 7, Minnich discloses in Fig 1 the method [Col 13, Lines 47-52] of claim 1, wherein the substantially non porous sheet (12) [Col 6, Lines 20-26] has a flap or stiffener (22) located along one or more edges [Fig 5] thereof and the windowpane [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments).
However, fails to disclose wherein the substantially non porous sheet has a flap or stiffener located along one or more edges thereof,
Furthermore, Kant discloses the method [Col 13, Lines 47-52, Minnich] further comprising applying the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7] to attach the flap or stiffener (22, Minnich) to the windowpane [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Minnich] (see examiners comments).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify substantially non porous sheet of Minnich to apply an attachment material to attach the stiffener to the windowpane in order to sufficiently / better prevent air flow. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019.
In regards to Claim 8, Minnich in Fig 1 discloses the method [Col 13, Lines 47-52] of claim 7 and the windowpane [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments).
However, fails to disclose wherein the attachment material has dimensions perpendicular and parallel to the windowpane of about 1.5 mm to about 3 mm.
Furthermore, Kant discloses the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7].
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment material of Kant to have dimensions perpendicular and parallel to the windowpane of about 1.5 mm to about 3 mm in shape in order to sufficiently / better prevent air flow. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
In regards to Claim 9, Minnich in Fig 1 discloses the method [Col 13, Lines 47-52] of claim 1, however, fails to disclose wherein the attachment material is applied in contact with the one or more pane fasteners.
Furthermore, Pandorf discloses the one or more pane fasteners (24) [0034] [Fig 7A].
Furthermore, Kant discloses the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7]
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the supplemental window apparatus as disclosed by Minnich to include the attachment material as disclosed by Kant, further applying the attachment material in contact with the one or more pane fasteners (Pandorf). When modified, the attachment material is applied near to or in contact with the one or more pane fasteners. Doing so helps sufficiently / better prevent air flow as initially intended.
In regards to Claim 10, Minnich in Fig 1 discloses the method [Col 13, Lines 47-52] of claim 1, the supplemental window apparatus (50) [Fig 1], the existing window (60) [Fig 1], the one or more mating (30) fasteners. However, fails to disclose determining whether the supplemental window apparatus (50) [Fig 1] is properly positioned on the existing window (60) [Fig 1] prior to applying the attachment material ; disengaging the one or more mating (30) fasteners from the one or more pane fasteners when the supplemental window apparatus (50) [Fig 1] is not properly positioned; and reattaching the one or more mating fasteners (30) to the one or more pane fasteners.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Minnich with determining whether the supplemental window apparatus is properly positioned on the existing window prior to applying the attachment material ; disengaging the one or more mating fasteners from the one or more pane fasteners when the supplemental window apparatus is not properly positioned; and reattaching the one or more mating fasteners to the one or more pane fasteners in order to facilitate installation of the supplemental window apparatus as intended. In general, selection of the order of performing process steps has been held as within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent new or unexpected results. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975.
Furthermore, Kant discloses the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7].
Furthermore, Pandorf discloses the one or more pane fasteners (24) [0034] [Fig 7A].
In regards to Claim 11, Minnich in Fig 1 discloses the method [Col 13, Lines 47-52] of claim 10, however fails to disclose wherein the method further comprises repeating the determining, disengaging, and reattaching until the supplemental window apparatus (50) [Fig 1] is properly positioned prior to the applying of the attachment material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Minnich with repeating the determining, disengaging, and reattaching until the supplemental window apparatus is properly positioned prior to the applying of the attachment material in order to facilitate installation of the supplemental window apparatus as intended. In general, selection of the order of performing process steps has been held as within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent new or unexpected results. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975.
Furthermore, Kant discloses the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7].
In regards to Claim 12, Minnich discloses in Fig 1 the method [Col 13, Lines 47-52] of claim 1, window pane [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments), the one or more mating fasteners (30), the supplemental window apparatus (50) [Fig 1]. However, fails to disclose wherein the one or more pane fasteners comprise mushroom head fasteners attached to the window pane [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments) using a pressure sensitive adhesive , wherein the applying the attachment material reduces a bond time required for the pressure sensitive adhesive between the mushroom head fasteners and the pressure sensitive adhesive prior to attaching the one or more mating fasteners (30) to the one or more pane fasteners during installation of the supplemental window apparatus (50) [Fig 1].
Furthermore, Kant discloses using a pressure sensitive adhesive (720) [Fig 7] , wherein the applying the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7] reduces a bond time required for the pressure sensitive adhesive (720) [Fig 7].
Furthermore, Pandorf discloses wherein the one or more pane fasteners (24) [0034] [Fig 7A] attached to the window pane [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Minnich] (see examiners comments) using a pressure sensitive adhesive (932, Kant) [Fig. 9B] and attaching the one or more mating fasteners (30, Minnich) to the one or more pane fasteners (24) [0034] [Fig 7A] during installation of the supplemental window apparatus (50, Minnich) [Fig 1].
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Pane Fasteners of Pandorf to have Mushroom head in shape in order to facilitate attachment of the windowpane. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
In regards to Claim 14, Minnich in Fig 1 discloses the method [Col 13, Lines 47-52] of claim 1, wherein the one or more mating fasteners (30) have an engagement thickness of about 5 mm to about 7 mm [Fig 3]. However, fails to disclose one or more pane fasteners have an engagement thickness of about 5 mm to about 7 mm, wherein the attachment material has a volume of about 0.3 cm3 to about 1.5 cm3 at each of the one or more areas.
Furthermore, Pandorf discloses one or more pane fasteners (24) [0034]
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify pane fasteners of Pandorf to have a have an engagement thickness of about 5 mm to about 7 mm in order to facilitate attachment. In general, 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).
Furthermore, Kant discloses the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7]
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify attachment material of Kant to have a volume of about 0.3 cm3 to about 1.5 cm3 at each of the one or more areas in order to facilitate or aid in attachment by providing sufficient size. In general, 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).
In regards to Claim 15, Minnich discloses A kit [Fig 1; Col 10, Lines 43-44] comprising:
a supplemental window apparatus (50) [Fig 1] having a substantially non porous sheet (12) [Col 6, Lines 20-26] having a sheet area [Fig 1] substantially similar to a window area [Fig 1] defined by interior surfaces of a window element (62a-d) [Fig 1]of an existing window (60) [Fig 1], the window element holding a windowpane [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments); and
instructions [Figs 1-4; any disclosed movement during install constituting ‘instructions’] for installing the supplemental window apparatus (50) [Fig 1] that comprise:
attaching [Fig 3, Showing Mating Fastener Attached] one or more mating fasteners (30) [Fig 3] coupled to the substantially non porous sheet (12) [Col 6, Lines 20-26] such that there is an air gap dimension [Fig 3] between the substantially non porous sheet (12) [Col 6, Lines 20-26] and the windowpane [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments).
However, Minnich fails to disclose
attaching one or more pane fasteners to the windowpane;
applying an attachment material to one or more areas of the supplemental window apparatus to further attach the supplemental window apparatus, the attachment material contacting both the windowpane and the supplement window apparatus, to further attach the supplement window apparatus to the windowpane.
Furthermore, Kant discloses
applying [Figs 6-7 Showing attachment material applied] an attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7] to one or more areas [Fig 7] of the supplemental window apparatus (50, Minnich) [Fig 1] to further attach the supplemental window apparatus (50, Minnich) [Fig 1], the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7] contacting both the windowpane [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Minnich] (see examiners comments) (104) [Fig 6] and the supplement window apparatus (12) [Col 6, Lines 20-26] and (501/502) [Fig 6], to further attach the supplement window apparatus (50, Minnich) [Fig 1] and (501/502) [Fig 6] to the windowpane [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments) (104) [Fig 6].
Examiners Note: Kant discloses the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7] contacting the supplemental window apparatus (501/502) [Fig 6] and the window pane (104) [Fig 6]
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit as disclosed by Minnich to further include an attachment material as disclosed by Kant. When modified, the supplement window apparatus would include the attachment material to one or more areas of the supplement window apparatus as desired by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, using the attachment material someone with ordinary skill in the art would apply the attachment material to one or more areas of the supplemental window apparatus to further attach the supplemental window apparatus to the window pane. Using the attachment material further limits air inflow/outflow from the edges as desired by the method and apparatus.
Furthermore, Pandorf discloses attaching one or more mating fasteners (30, Minnich) [Fig 3] coupled to the substantially non porous sheet (12, Minnich) [Col 6, Lines 20-26] to the one or more pane fasteners (24) [0034] [Fig 7A], such that there is an air gap dimension [Fig 3, Minnich] between the sheet (12, Minnich) and the windowpane [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Minnich] (see examiners comments);
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit as disclosed by Minnich to include the pane fasteners as disclosed by Pandorf. When modified, the supplemental window apparatus would further attach one or more mating fasteners coupled to the substantially non porous sheet to the one or more pane fasteners, such that there is an air gap dimension between the sheet and the windowpane. Lastly, including a pane fastener as disclosed by Pandorf further facilitates a securing mechanism to the overall frame.
In regards to Claim 16, Minnich discloses the kit [Fig 1; Col 10, Lines 43-44] of claim 15, however, fails to disclose further comprising: the attachment material.
Furthermore, Kant discloses the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7].
In regards to Claim 17, Minnich discloses the kit [Fig 1; Col 10, Lines 43-44] of claim 16, however fails to disclose wherein the attachment material is one or more of an adhesive , a sealant, or a caulk.
Furthermore, Kant discloses wherein the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7] is one or more of an adhesive [0045], a sealant, or a caulk.
In regards to Claim 18, Minnich discloses the kit [Fig 1; Col 10, Lines 43-44] of claim 15, wherein the instructions [Figs 1-4; any disclosed movement during install constituting ‘instructions’] for installing the supplemental window apparatus (50) [Fig 1] further comprise:
However, fails to disclose
wherein the instructions for installing the supplemental window apparatus further comprise: determining whether the supplemental window apparatus (50) [Fig 1] is properly positioned on the existing window prior to applying the attachment material; disengaging the one or more mating fasteners from the one or more pane fasteners when the supplemental window apparatus is not properly positioned; and reattaching the one or more mating fasteners to the one or more pane fasteners.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit of Minnich with determining whether the supplemental window apparatus is properly positioned on the existing window prior to applying the attachment material ; disengaging the one or more mating fasteners from the one or more pane fasteners when the supplemental window apparatus is not properly positioned; and reattaching the one or more mating fasteners to the one or more pane fasteners in order to facilitate installation of the supplemental window apparatus as intended. In general, selection of the order of performing process steps has been held as within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent new or unexpected results. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975.
Furthermore, Kant discloses the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7].
Furthermore, Pandorf discloses the one or more pane fasteners (24) [0034] [Fig 7A].
In regards to Claim 19, Minnich discloses the kit [Fig 1; Col 10, Lines 43-44] of claim 18, wherein the instructions [Figs 1-4; any disclosed movement during install constituting ‘instructions’] for installing the supplemental window apparatus (50) [Fig 1] further comprise repeating the determining, disengaging, and reattaching until the supplemental window apparatus (50) [Fig 1] is properly positioned. However, fails to disclose reattaching until the supplemental window apparatus (50) [Fig 1] is properly positioned prior to the applying of the attachment material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit of Minnich with repeating the determining, disengaging, and reattaching until the supplemental window apparatus is properly positioned prior to the applying of the attachment material in order to facilitate installation of the supplemental window apparatus as intended. In general, selection of the order of performing process steps has been held as within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent new or unexpected results. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975.
Furthermore, Kant discloses the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7].
5. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnich (US 6052957 A) in view of Kant (US 20090193756 A1) and Pandorf (US 20090090062 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kontos (US 20090133341 A1).
In regards to Claim 13, Minnich in Fig 1 discloses the method [Col 13, Lines 47-52] of claim 1, wherein the supplemental window apparatus (50) [Fig 1], substantially non porous sheet (12) [Col 6, Lines 20-26].
However, fails to disclose wherein the supplemental window apparatus further comprises one or more spacers extending from the substantially non porous sheet and a foot extending from each of the one or more spacers, the foot having the mating fastener located thereon, wherein the attachment material is applied to a portion of the foot that does not include the mating fastener.
Furthermore, Kontos discloses wherein the supplemental window apparatus (50, Minnich) [Fig 1] further comprises one or more spacers (64) [0044] [Fig 11] extending from the substantially non porous sheet (12, Minnich) [Col 6, Lines 20-26] and a foot (Extended portion of 64) [0044-0045] [Fig 11] extending from each of the one or more spacers (64) [0044] [Fig 11]
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the supplemental window apparatus as disclosed by Minnich to include the spacer as disclosed by Kontos. When modified, one or more spacers extending from the substantially non porous sheet. The spacer is used as an insulating mechanism.
Furthermore, Kant discloses wherein the attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7] is applied to a portion of the foot (Extended portion of 64) [0044-0045] [Fig 11] that does not include the mating fastener (30, Minnich) .
Examiners Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
541
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Minnich, Figure 1
Response to Arguments
6. Objections to the Claims: Applicant' s argument with respect to the claim objections is persuasive and objection to the claims is hereby withdrawn.
7. Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant' s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 are partially persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby maintained.
In regards to the terms “Substantially Similar” and “Properly Positioned” (see 112-rejections above)
Applicant recites in regards to “Substantially Similar” and “Properly Positioned” the raised relevant rejection is transversed. The applicant recites that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope of the claim in light of the specification.
Examiners Response:
In regards to both terms “Substantially Similar” and “Properly Positioned” both terms are maintained as being relevant terms. Relevant terms are deemed indefinite if the word can be used to assert different situations. The terms “Substantially Similar” and “Properly Positioned” is subjective to one of ordinary skill in the art, whereas the specification does not support the phrase of “Substantially Similar” or “Properly positioned”.
Additionally, the phrase “Substantially Similar” is approached with sort of leeway. The claim language "a supplemental window apparatus having a substantially non porous sheet having a sheet area substantially similar to a window area defined by interior surfaces of a window element of an existing window." However, no definition is given, it is unclear if the non porous sheet fits the window area defined by interior surfaces of a window element of an existing window with no leeway (i.e., no openings, perfect fit, no off-sets).
Additionally, the phrase “properly positioned” is approached with sort of leeway. Specification Paragraph [0122] discloses "[t]he sheet material 32 of the lower and upper supplemental window is partially shown for illustration purposes and normally covers all or nearly all of the window pane”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that as all the window pane whereas another one of ordinary skill would understand that to be nearly all of the window pane. It is unclear is if is intended to be all of the windowpane (i.e., no holes, openings, or offsets) or if there is.
9. Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant' s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
In regards to argument: regarding Claims 1-12 and 14-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,052,957 to Minnich ("Minnich") in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0193756 to Kant ("Kant") and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0090062 to Pandorf ("Pandorf"); and claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnich in view of Kant and Pandorf as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0133341 to Kontos ("Kontos").
Applicant recites the above publications alone or in combination do not disclose or suggest “applying an attachment material to one or more areas of the supplemental window apparatus, the attachment material contacting both the windowpane and the supplement window apparatus to further attach the supplement window apparatus in the windowpane”.
Additionally, Applicant recites applying the adhesive on the opposing side of the insulator would alter the principle of operation of Kant, which teaches attaching the window insulator using the suction cup.
Additionally, Applicant recites, that a POSA would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Minnich and Kant in the manner suggested. In particular, the clip 931 which is held by adhesive 932, would disrupt the creation of the "dead air space" mentioned in Minnich by disrupting contact of the resilient covering 14 with receiving frame perimeter 62a-d.
Examiners Response: However, due to additional amendment “the attachment material contacting both the windowpane and the supplemental window apparatus” as added in Claims 1 and 15 (both independents). The arguments geared towards Kant and the use of the attachment material (932) is now moot. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0193756 to Kant ("Kant") no longer is relied on for the attachment material (932) as originally used. Furthermore, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0193756 to Kant ("Kant") is now relied on attachment material (Combination of 503/504/720) [Figs. 6-7]. As recited in the above rejection (see 103-rejections), Kant discloses the new limitations.
Additionally, in regards to the principle of operation of Kant. The purpose of Kant is to provide a window insulator (as is described in the abstract) and that adding an adhesive would not prevent functioning as a window insulator.
Conclusion
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA K. AL-ASWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-6335. The examiner can normally be reached M through F 7:30 to 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 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.
/Z.K.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights