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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/09/2026.
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 4-5, 8, 11-12 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 4, it is unclear if the two fastener panels are of the at least one fastener panel previously established in the claims. The examiner will examine as best understood with the fastener panels of claim 4 being of the fastener panels of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear if the two fastener panels are of the at least one fastener panel previously established in the claims. The examiner will examine as best understood with the fastener panels of claim 8 being of the fastener panels of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 8, in line 6, it is unclear what is meant by the limitation “defining said withing channel.” The examiner will examine as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said valence" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said at least one channel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear what comprises a vertical panel and a horizontal panel. The examiner will examine as best understood with the horizontal panel and the vertical panel being of the at least one fastener panel. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 USC 112 as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coyle et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0156154.
Regarding claim 1, Coyle discloses a trim assembly comprising: a mounting component (100, 200) including; an elongated base track (100) defining at least one fastener panel (101) configured to be fastened to a wall and/or a ceiling surface; and at least one functional component (115) providing a function different from the aesthetic feature of the molding system; a trim component (200) including an elongated trim panel (201) sized to conceal the mounting component when the trim panel is engaged to the mounting component and the mounting component is fastened to the wall and/or ceiling surface (see Fig. 8C); and a removable snap-fit connection between the base track and the trim panel. The phrases “configured to be fastened to a wall and/or a ceiling surface” and “sized to conceal the mounting component when the trim panel is engaged to the mounting component and the mounting component is fastened to the wall and/or ceiling surface” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Coyle discloses a trim assembly wherein the removable snap-fit connection includes: a pair of retention arms (109, 120) defined by the base track and projecting outward from said fastener panel; and at least one pair of resilient prongs (210, 220) projecting from an inner surface of the trim panel, said resilient prongs configured to be deflected relative to each other upon engagement with the pair of retention arms, thereby exerting a spring force to hold the prongs in engagement with the retention arms (paragraph 62, generally). The phrase “configured to be deflected relative to each other upon engagement with the pair of retention arms, thereby exerting a spring force to hold the prongs in engagement with the retention arms” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 9, Coyle discloses a trim assembly wherein said elongated base track defines an elongated fastener channel extending from each of said at least one fastener panel (channel delineated by components 113 and 116), said elongated fastener channel configured to guide an elongated fastener to said fastener panel. The phrase “configured to guide an elongated fastener to said fastener panel” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 12, Coyle discloses a trim assembly wherein: said base track is configured to be seated at the interface between a vertical wall surface and a ceiling surface, including a vertical panel (103) configured to engage said vertical wall surface and a horizontal panel (121) configured to engage said ceiling surface; and said base track defines a pair of fastener guide channels (channel delineated by 108 and 107, channel delineated by 101 and 120), each configured to receive an elongated fastener therethrough (when fasteners are utilized at each panel), and one of said guide channels intersecting said vertical panel and the other of said guide channels intersecting said horizontal panel (see Fig. 6B). The phrases “configured to be seated at the interface between a vertical wall surface and a ceiling surface,” “configured to engage said vertical wall surface and a horizontal panel,” “configured to engage said ceiling surface,” and “configured to receive an elongated fastener therethrough” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyle et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0156154 in view of Fulton, U.S. Patent 5,359,817.
Regarding claim 3, Coyle discloses a trim assembly but does not disclose wherein the trim panel includes a first pair of resilient prongs and a second pair of resilient prongs spaced apart along the inner surface of the trim panel from the first pair, each of said first and second pair of resilient prongs configured for selective snap-fit engagement with the pair of retention arms of the mounting component. Fulton teaches a trim panel with two pairs of resilient prongs (22). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use multiple pairs of spaced prongs on the trim panel to reduce the material and thereby reduce cost, and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyle et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0156154 in view of Barcelos et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0235564.
Regarding claim 6, Coyle discloses a trim assembly wherein: the base track defines a mounting surface (surface of 130) separate from the fastener surface, but does not disclose the functional component includes an LED lighting strip configured to be mounted on said mounting surface. Barcelos teaches an LED lighting strip in a trim assembly (38, 40; paragraphs 36, 55). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a lighting feature as the functional component dependent on a user’s aesthetic preference.
Regarding claim 7, Coyle in view of Barcelos, as modified, discloses a trim assembly wherein said base track defines a wiring channel for receiving wiring associated with said LED lighting strip (see Coyle Fig. 8C, channel in which functional component 400 is seated).
Regarding claim 8, Coyle discloses a trim assembly but does not specifically disclose wherein: said elongated base track defines two fastener panels (103, 121); said elongated base track defines an elongated fastener channel extending from each of said two fastener panels (channel delineated by 108 and 107, channel delineated by 101 and 120), each elongated fastener channel configured to guide an elongated fastener to said fastener panel (when fasteners are utilized at each panel); and said fastener channels and said fastener panels defining said withing channel, as best understood in light of the specification as the structural limitations have been met. The phrase “configured to guide an elongated fastener to said fastener panel” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyle et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0156154 in view of Fisher et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0061300.
Regarding claim 10, Coyle discloses a trim assembly in which the system is configured for mounting around a window opening of a recreational vehicle in which the window opening includes a window assembly and valence supporting at least one window covering extendable over the window opening (as desired by a user), wherein said functional component includes at least one channel defined in said base track (channel delineated by components 108 and 109), but does not specifically disclose said at least one channel configured to receive an edge of said at least one window covering therein to guide said at least one window covering as it is extended over said window opening. Fisher teaches a valence held within a trim assembly (see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a valence may be utilized as the functional component of the channel of the base assembly depending on a user’s needs when the trim is desired at a window, and depending on positioning of the trim assembly. The phrases “configured for mounting around a window opening of a recreational vehicle in which the window opening includes a window assembly and valence supporting at least one window covering extendable over the window opening” and “configured to receive an edge of said at least one window covering therein to guide said at least one window covering as it is extended over said window opening” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 11, Coyle discloses a trim system but does not specifically disclose in which said valence supports a screen and a sunshade and said at least one channel includes a separate channel to receive an edge of said screen and said sunshade. Coyle does disclose two channels (112, 115). Fisher teaches a valence held within a trim assembly (see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a valence may be utilized as the functional component in one of the channels of the base assembly depending on a user’s needs when the trim is desired at a window, and depending on positioning of the trim assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious a modular molding system having all of the components in combination as claimed and including the pairs of prongs and end panels as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633