DETAILED ACTION
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
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 1-7, 12, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Jackson et al. (US 2020/0070635) (hereinafter Jackson).
Regarding claim 1, Jackson discloses a window portal fittable in a screen (element 16) overlaying a window [for accessing window wing controls through the portal]*, the portal comprising a fixed frame (considered at least elements 18, 22, and 34) [adapted to be fitted in the screen forming a hole in the screen]*, and a movable door (element 24) coupled to the fixed frame so as to move generally in a plane substantially parallel to the plane of the screen between open and closed positions (See Figures 1-10, element 24 moves in a plane parallel with element 16), the moveable door being alignable with the fixed frame so that when it is moved to a closed position it closes the portal, characterized in that, the fixed frame and door are in frictional contact such that the movable door may be rotated in its position across the fixed frame out of its position of alignment with the fixed frame while being self holding by the frictional contact in an open position for single handed operation to open and close the portal.
Examiner notes that Figures 1 and 2 of Jackson are respectively described as “FIG. 1 is a rear face view of a hatch assembly of the invention, in a closed position”, and “ FIG. 2 is a front face view of the hatch assembly of FIG. 1, in a closed position”. Additionally, Figures 3 and 4 of Jackson are respectively described as “FIG. 3 is a rear face view of a hatch assembly of the invention, in an open position”, and “FIG. 4 is a front face view of the hatch assembly of FIG. 1, in an open position”. See Figures 1 and 3 of Jackson reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
288
208
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
288
194
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Jackson, Figure 1: “Closed Position”)][AltContent: textbox (Jackson, Figure 3: “Open Position”)]
Examiner believes that the sliding door of Jackson is clearly depicted as being “self-holding” in both the open and closed positions, as shown above. Because, if the door was not “self-holding” it would freely swing on its pivot axis (element 26), and the door would not hold either of the positions above, due to the constant force of gravity acting on the door, and therefore would not function as intened. However, if Applicant disagrees, and since Jackson does not explicitly recite that the fixed frame and door are in frictional contact such that the movable door may be rotated in its position across the fixed frame out of its position of alignment with the fixed frame while being self-holding by the frictional contact in an open position for single handed operation to open and close the portal, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the structural dimensions of the hatch assembly of Jackson such that the fixed frame and door are in frictional contact such that the movable door may be rotated in its position across the fixed frame out of its position of alignment with the fixed frame while being self-holding by the frictional contact in an open position for single handed operation to open and close the portal, in a manner such that the positions explicitly illustrated in Figures 1-4 of Jackson, and reproduced above, can be held and retained by the assembly without constant external intervention, since this functionality would clearly align with the disclosed operational capability of Jackson, and since it has been held that changes in shape, form, or configuration of components of a device are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape, form, or configuration would be found significant to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Such modifications are not critical to the design and would have produced no unexpected results. In addition, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functioned at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well. Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the structural dimensions of the hatch assembly of Jackson such that the fixed frame and door are in frictional contact such that the movable door may be rotated in its position across the fixed frame out of its position of alignment with the fixed frame while being self-holding by the frictional contact in an open position for single handed operation to open and close the portal, since it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of results (MPEP 2143(E)), and designing the interface between the movable door (element 24) and its frame such that the assembly is capable of holding the “open” and “closed” positions that are explicitly shown in the disclosure, would have been a predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of results.
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a window portal fittable in a screen, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the window portal fittable in a screen disclosed by Jackson is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, Jackson discloses wherein the frictional contact comprises sliding frictional contact adjacent a pivot between the door and the frame sufficient to hold the door at any position in its travel or the frictional contact is at or adjacent to an end of travel for the door to self-hold while open (See at least paragraphs [0041-0042]).
Regarding claim 3, Jackson discloses the door being manually slidable across the fixed frame between open and closed positions.
Regarding claim 4, Jackson discloses the self-holding of the door is promoted by a tightenable connector between the fixed frame and door (element 26 is a “screw”).
Regarding claim 5, Jackson discloses wherein the frame and/or door comprise clipped together parts. Examiner notes that the term “clipped together” is considered to be very broad, and Applicants only reference to “clipped together parts” is found in paragraphs [0019] and [0031], and no particular definition for the term “clipped” is given.
Regarding claim 6, Jackson discloses wherein the self-holding of the door is promoted by a tightenable connector (element 26) between the frame and door and the frame is comprised of clipped together parts. Examiner notes that the term “clipped” is considered to be very broad, and the connection between elements 18 and 34, as shown in at least Figure 13 is considered to satisfy the broad term “clipped together”. See definition for “clipped” below:
clipped
clip 2
(klĭp)
n.
1. Any of various devices for gripping or holding things together; a clasp or fastener.
2. A piece of jewelry that fastens with a clasp or clip, such as an earring or a brooch.
3. A cartridge clip.
tr.v. clipped, clip·ping, clips
1. To fasten with or as if with a clip; hold tightly.
2. Archaic To embrace or encompass.
Source: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/clipped
Regarding claim 7, Jackson discloses wherein, the door is conformed to resist manual movement between open and closed positions. Examiner notes that element 24 necessarily resists an undisclosed amount of movement, in order to remain in the closed position, as shown in Figure 3, without moving.
Regarding claim 12, Jackson discloses wherein when the door is closed, the door hangs from the fixed frame at a pivot point. Examiner notes that element 24 of Jackson is connected to the portal assembly via element 26.
Regarding claim 15, Jackson discloses wherein the fixed frame is made from two connectable parts (See Figures 5 and 13) arranged to clamp screen material between them when connected to each other over the screen.
Regarding claim 16, Jackson discloses wherein the fixed frame parts making up the fixed frame have sets of complementary connectors at opposite ends of the parts (See Figure 13), the complementary connectors being clipped together on opposite sides of a screen sandwiched between the parts.
Regarding claim 17, Jackson discloses wherein the fixed frame and door are generally circular with radiused ends having a longitudinal axis adapted to be set horizontally in use. The fixed frame and door are not generally oval or rectangular. Examiner notes, however, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the frame and door such that they are generally oval or rectangular, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Examiner additionally notes that although the fixed frame and door are not generally oval or rectangular, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the art in this way, since it has been held that changes in shape, form, or configuration of components of a device are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape, form, or configuration would be found significant to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Such modifications are not critical to the design and would have produced no unexpected results. In addition, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functional at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well.
Regarding claim 19, Jackson discloses wherein the fixed frame of the portal comprises two frames (elements 18 and 34), [the frames being fittable together to sandwich flat screen material between them when operatively positioned, screen material being removable to form a hole through the fixed frame and thereby though surrounding screen material, the door being rotatably fixed to the fixed frame at an axis of rotation, the axis of rotation being substantially at right angles to the plane of the flat screen material]*. Examiner notes that the portal assembly of Jackson is entirely capable of the functional claim language above. The two frames of Jackson are not generally oval. Examiner notes, however, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the two frames such that they are generally oval, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Examiner additionally notes that although the two frames are not generally oval or rectangular, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the art in this way, since it has been held that changes in shape, form, or configuration of components of a device are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape, form, or configuration would be found significant to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Such modifications are not critical to the design and would have produced no unexpected results. In addition, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functional at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well.
Claims 8, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Jackson et al. (US 2020/0070635) (hereinafter Jackson) in view of Spencer (US 8,881,788).
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 13, Jackson does not explicitly disclose wherein the door resists movement and that resistance is provided by a gasket or gaskets (i.e. seal) between the frame and the door fitted in a contact region where the door remains in contact with the frame via the gasket when in the open position, the gasket having a slight bulge which contacts the adjacent frame. Spencer, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure a window portal fittable in a screen (element 16) overlaying a window (Examiner notes that element 16 is considered to overlay an opening in a door frame (i.e. a “window”), the portal having a fixed frame (considered at least element 22) [adapted to be fitted in the screen forming a hole in the screen]*, the portal having the said fixed frame and a movable door (element 90) coupled to the fixed frame, the moveable door being alignable with the fixed frame so that when it is moved to a closed position it closes the portal, and wherein the door resists movement and that resistance is provided by a gasket or gaskets (elements 48 and 66) between the frame and the door fitted in a contact region where the door remains in contact with the frame via the gasket when in the open position, the gasket having a slight bulge which contacts the adjacent frame. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window portal assembly of Jackson such that it includes a gasket between the frame and the door fitted in a contact region where the door remains in contact with the frame via the gasket when in the open position, the gasket having a slight bulge which contacts the adjacent frame, as taught by Spencer, as this would provide an enhanced seal between the movable door and fixed frame, which would be desirable in particular applications to prevent the ingress of unwanted dust and debris. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument “Jackson et al.'s hatch 24 is a captive disc constrained between concentric guide rings 18 and 34. Its motion is confined within channels 23/32, requiring multiple parts and a pin latch. It lacks a freely supported "self holding" door moving "in a plane substantially parallel to the screen”. Examiner disagrees. See rejection for claim 1 above.
Regarding the argument “if channel 32 fits into channel 23, the hatch 24 cannot move. Examiner disagrees. Jackson clearly illustrates and discloses a movable hatch. See at least Figures 1-4 of Jackson. Additionally, see at least paragraphs [0041-0043],
“when it is desired to open the hatch 24, the protrusion 28 is moved along the inside perimeter of the rim cover 34, thereby sliding the hatch 24 over the static member 22 and opening aperture 20”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim, 10 and 14 are allowed.
Claim 18 is 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JUSTIN B REPHANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/JUSTIN B REPHANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3634