DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 23 October 2025, canceling claim 12, are acknowledged.
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
Applicant’s election of group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 23 October 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figure 3a should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the instant specification lacks section headings as is conventional in US practice.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, it may be omitted or the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 8-11 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 5 and 8-11 have not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b).
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the polymeric matrix" in line 6; “the surface quality” in line 11.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the application" in line 3.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the inner sides" in line 2.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Additionally, the claim recite a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim). This may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance:
Claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a polymeric…window or door hollow-chamber profile (1)”, and the claim also recites “a… thermoplastic window or door hollow-chamber profile (1)” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 1 recites the broad recitation “the core profile (10) is provided with a… outer coating (12)”, and the claim also recites “the core profile (10) is provided with a… extruded outer coating (12)” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 3 recites the broad recitation “the core profiles (10, 10') are first connected to one another by at least one connecting profile (17)…. prior to the application of the outer coating (12)”, and the claim also recites “the core profiles (10, 10') are first connected to one another by at least one connecting profile (17)… produced by way of extrusion, prior to the application of the outer coating (12).” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (WO 2018/072878 A1, citations based on FIT translation submitted herewith) in view of Rehau AG + Co (DE 20 2011 103 238 U1, citations based on FIT translation submitted herewith)
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt discloses a method for manufacturing a polymeric, in particular thermoplastic window or door hollow-chamber profile (1) (title/abstract),
- wherein the hollow-chamber profile (1) that comprises at least one hollow chamber (2, 2') is produced using a extrusion production process (3) (FIG. 3a-c; pp. 5-6),
- wherein, during this extrusion production process (3), continuous reinforcing fibers (5) are integrated in the polymeric matrix (4) of the hollow-chamber profile (1) (FIG. 2; pp. 5-6), and
- wherein the extrusion production process (3) is used to produce at least one continuous fiber-reinforced core profile (10) of the hollow-chamber profile (1) comprising at least one hollow chamber (2), and the core profile (10) is provided with a preferably extruded outer coating (12) to improve the surface quality of the hollow-chamber profile (1) (FIG. 3a-c; p. 6).
Schmidt also suggests a plurality of hollow chambers 2, 2’ of the core profile 10’ (FIG. 3a-3c).
Schmidt does not appear to expressly disclose at least two separate core profiles (10, 10') are produced by means of the extrusion production process (3) and are jointly covered by the outer coating (12) in order to produce the hollow-chamber profile (1).
However, Rehau discloses a method of forming hollow articles from continuous fiber reinforced plastic (title/abstract; FIG. 1, 8) wherein a plurality of hollow chambers (4) are enclosed by circumferential outer wall (6) to form the hollow base profile (2) (pp. 4+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Schmidt to include the separate hollow chambers of Rehau, in order to form modular articles with different properties in each corresponding separate chambers.
Regarding claim 2, Schmidt suggests that the extrusion production process (3) is carried out as a reactive pultrusion (p. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Schmidt and Rehau suggests that the core profiles (2, 2’, or 4) are first connected to one another by at least one connecting profile (17 or 5), preferably produced by way of extrusion, prior to the application of the outer coating (12 or 6) (Schmidt FIG. 3a-3c; pp. 5-6, and/or Rehau FIG. 1+; pp. 4+).
Regarding claim 4, Schmidt suggests that the connecting profile (17) is manufactured as a connecting hollow-chamber profile that comprises at least one closed hollow chamber (2') (FIG. 3a-3c; pp. 5-6).
Regarding claim 6, Rehau suggests that the connection of the core profiles (4) to the hollow-chamber profile (2) is established by the outer coating (6) (Rehau; pp. 4+).
Regarding claim 7, Schmidt suggests that the outer coating (12) forms a connecting hollow chamber (2) together with the inner sides (21) of the core profiles (10, 10') facing one another (FIG. 3a-3c).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
AL-SHEYYAB; Ahmad et al.
US 20250207454 A1
Applicant related copending work
AL-SHEYYAB; Ahmad et al.
US 20250207455 A1
GRASSELLI; GIORGIO
US 20200086520 A1
US version of IDS doc EP 3626416 A1
AL-SHEYYAB; Ahmad et al.
US 20250207456 A1
Applicant related copending work
Gerber; Nils et al.
US 12420499 B2
Balazek; David T. et al.
US 4938823 A
Prior art pultrusion/extrusion process
Nelson; Sherri M. et al.
US 9409347 B2
Peterson; Trevor Dean et al.
US 10550257 B2
Patent of IDS doc US 20170240737 A1
FISCHER KATJA et al.
KR 20150116859 A
Prior art pultrusion/extrusion process
AL-SHEYYAB AHMAD
WO 2019197112 A1
Applicant previous work
CHAUZU FRANK
FR 3037856 A1
Prior art hollow door from manufacturing process
BUNHOFER ERWIN
BR 0002083 B1
SCHMIDT STEVEN et al.
DE 102016119765 A1
Applicant previous work
Morton; Philip G.
US 10451200 B2
Prior art pultrusion/extrusion process
Richardson; Henry E. et al.
US 10427346 B2
Wertitsch; Werner et al.
US 5105596 A
Rau; Robert B. et al.
US 4816331 A
SCHMIDT STEVEN et al.
EP 3529062 B1
Cited in instant specification
FISCHER KATJA et al.
EP 2953775 B1
AL-SHEYYAB AHMAD et al.
EP 2493673 B1
BEAUPERE DIDIER et al.
EP 2528723 B1
NEUKIRCHNER JÖRG et al.
EP 2191090 B1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p EST.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742