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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final office action in response to the amendment filed 7/15/2026.
Claims 1-18 are amended.
Claims 1-18 are pending and examined.
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 1-18 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.
In claim 1, line 1, the term “for manufacturing doors or windows” in line 1 is considered to mean “something made from raw materials by hand or by machinery” and renders the metes and bounds unclear as the frame is used in a door/window not for manufacturing the door/window.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-11 and 16 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C.
102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Westhof(EP1801341; cited on IDS filed 3/4/2026).
Westhof discloses a frame for manufacturing with doors or windows with incorporation of protection against external light(9, 10, see para. [0049] and Figs. 1-3) and/or lighting(3 and 7, see para. [0049] and Fig. 1) comprising at least one fixed frame(14), at least one panel(4) with a movable frame(around 4, see Fig. 2):
at least one means of protection against external light(9, 10) and/or at least one
lighting means(3, 7, 8), each of the at least one means of protection against external light(9,10) and/or at least one lighting means(3, 7), when present, being housed on at least one housing profile(14, see Fig. 1-2) of the fixed frame(14/23), said at least one housing profile(14) of the fixed frame(14/23) is located on at least one point on a lintel of the fixed frame(the housing profile 14 is affixed to the frame in as much as the disclosed profile is located on a point of a “lintel” of the frame and therefore meets the claim limitation) and on at least one side of the panel(see Fig. 2); and
at least two openings(for 3, 7 and 9 and 10), said openings being located in the fixed frame(see Fig. 2) in such a way as to project illumination from the lighting means(see para. [0049]) and to allow the at least one means of protection against external light(9, 10) to slide by vertical movement parallel to the at least one pane(see paras. [0047] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 2, Westhof discloses the frame of claim 1 wherein the means of
protection against external light(9,10) are roller blinds(see paras. [0048] and [0049],
said roller blinds being inserted into rollers(21, see Fig. 1; the term roller blind/shutter
would inherently infer the use of a roller meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 3, Westhof discloses the frame according to claim 1 wherein the
means of protection against external light(9, 10) are moved manually and/or
automatically(see para. [0049]).
Regarding claim 4, Westhof discloses the frame according to claim 1 wherein the
means of protection against external light(9, 10) comprise a weight located at a free end thereof, the free end crossing the opening(the bar at the free end of 9 is considered to impart at least some weight to the means and meets the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 5, Westhof discloses the frame according to claim 1 wherein the
means of protection against external light(9,10) comprise a variable engagement(the
screen and blind are movable and meet the claim limitation) and the fixed frame(14)
comprises fixing means along a jamb of the fixed frame(the housing 14 is affixed to the wall and therefore considered to inherently be affixed to a door jamb used to secured a door to a wall meeting the claim limitation), with the variable engagement of the protection means against external light fixed in the fixing means on the fixed frame(via the elements of the housing), in the upward-descending movement.
Regarding claim 6, Westhof discloses the frame according to claim 1 wherein the
frame comprises a motor(see para. [0049]), said motor driving the movement of the
means of protection against external light(9).
Regarding claim 9, Westhof discloses the frame according to claim 1 wherein the
lighting means(3, 7) are located on outer sides of the means of protection against light(9,10, see Fig. 1, the claim has no structural limitation to the location of the lights
with respect to the means of protection and the lights are therefore considered on outer
sides of the means of protection 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 10, Westhof discloses the frame according to claim 1 wherein
the lighting means are LED(see para. [0058], when only the means for protection is in
the housing, "and/or" in claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Westhof discloses the frame according to claim 1 wherein
the frame comprises a built-in light sensor(see para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 16, Westhof discloses the frame according to claim 1, wherein the panels(4) are made of panels of single, double, triple glass, or another type of material(see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 18, Westhof discloses the frame according to claim 1 wherein the means of protection against light(screen 9) comprise a net configured to protect against entry of mosquitoes or dust(a screen is considered to inherently have openings for air to pass meeting the claim limitation.
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.
Claims 7-8, 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westhof.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Westhof discloses the frame according to claim 1 but lacks the specific blind movement and size of the openings.
Applicant's disclosure lends no criticality to the manner in which the roller blind is moved(see page 4, lines 7-18 and page 6, lines 9-11).
Therefore, the specific manner of moving the roller, such as with a reversible motor or a battery, is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the blind and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Westhof discloses the frame according to claim 1 but lacks the specific size of the openings.
Applicant's disclosure lends no criticality to the specific size of the opening(see page 4, lines 3-5).
Therefore, the specific size of the openings is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the blind and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 13, Westhof discloses the frame according to claim 1 wherein a temperature sensor(13) is provided but lacks the specific location of the sensor.
Applicant's disclosure lends no criticality to the location of the temperature sensor(see page 6, lines 1-3).
Therefore, the specific location of the sensor is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the blind and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Westhof discloses the frame according to claim 1 but lacks the specific panels used.
Applicant's disclosure lends no criticality to the panels used(see page 5, lines 31- - 32).
Therefore, the panels used is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the blind and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 17, Westhof discloses the frame according to claim 1 but lacks the specific material of the frames.
Applicant's disclosure lends no criticality to the specific material of the frames(no reference in disclosure).
Therefore, the specific material used for the frames is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the blind and design requirements thereof.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the specification and claim objections and 112 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 and the Westhof reference not being a single unitary frame with the claim elements integrated into a continuous fixed frame profile are not persuasive as this feature is not claimed. The applicant argues that the Westhof reference has multiple elements making up the frame and points to terminology in the Westhof disclosure arguing that this points to the Westhof reference being different than the claimed invention. The examiner contends that the terminology used by the Westhof reference does not overcome that the features of the Westhof reference meet the claimed language as set forth in the rejection. The elements of Westhof meet the features of the claim as discussed in the above rejection. Also, the term “frame” does not set forth the number of elements making up the frame or preclude the frame from being made up of multiple elements.
Applicant’s argument regarding the “lintel” is not persuasive. As discussed in the above rejection, in view of applicant’s amendments and arguments and disclosure, the profile and frame of Westhof is considered to interact with a “lintel” in as much as the disclosed/claimed profile and frame interact with a “lintel”.
Applicant’s argument regarding the movable frame is not persuasive as the terminology used by the Westhof reference does not preclude the elements from meeting the claim limitation. Also, the movable frame is not required to have the frame “throughout its entire perimeter” as this feature is not claimed.
Applicant’s argument regarding the “frame for manufacturing doors or windows” is not persuasive. The phrase renders the metes and bounds unclear as stated in the 112 rejection above. The examiner notes that the term does not define over the Westhof reference as the frame of Westhof is considered “for manufacture” in as much as the claimed frame is “for manufacture” as neither meet the well known meaning of “for manufacture”.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the specification and claim objections and 112 rejections are moot as they have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument regarding the dependent claims has been discussed above regarding claim 1.
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 BETH A. AUBREY whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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.
BETH A. AUBREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Aubrey/
Prosecution Insights