DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 13 April 2026, amending the specification, drawings, and claims 1-12, 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
Amened claim 12 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process, for example where the hollow chamber profiles are produced by resin transfer molding.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 12 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-4, 6-11 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).
Regarding claim 8, Schmidt suggests that the outer coating (12) and the production of the connecting profile (17) takes place on-line with the extrusion production process (3) of the core profiles (10,10') (FIG. 2; pp. 5-6).
Regarding claim 9, Schmidt suggests that the connecting profile (17) and/or the outer coating (12) are coextruded with the core profiles (10,10') (FIG. 2; pp. 5-6).
Regarding claim 10, Schmidt suggests that the outer coating (12) and/or the connecting profile (17) are produced from non-reinforced synthetic material (15) (FIG. 3a-3c; pp. 5-6).
Regarding claim 11, Schmidt suggests the outer coating (12) is produced with a layer thickness (SB) of at least 0.3 mm (p. 3).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (WO 2018/072878 A1) in view of Rehau AG + Co (DE 20 2011 103 238 U1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Nelson et al. (US 9,409,347 B2).
Schmidt does not appear to expressly disclose a thickness of the connecting portion.
However, Nelson discloses a similar method of coating pultruded composites (title/abstract; 14:3+) which includes discrete internal layers 306a/b, 409 (FIG. 15-16; 15:35+) which have thickness on the order of 0.1 to 4.0 mm (14:31+) which overlaps the claimed range (MPEP § 2144.05).
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 thickness of Nelson, because such thickness provides desired properties in similar methods.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the claims require “i) the production of two or more distinct and separately produced core profiles, where each core profile is formed independently (e.g., by extrusion or pultrusion), ii) the subsequent bringing together of those distinct core profiles, and iii) the application of a single, common outer coating that jointly covers the multiple core profiles to form one hollow chamber profile” and that this is not taught by the cited prior art. However, it is the Examiner’s position that the claims are not as narrow as Applicant argues. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for manufacturing a polymeric window or door hollow-chamber profile,
- wherein the hollow-chamber profile that comprises at least one hollow chamber is produced using a extrusion production process,
- wherein, during this extrusion production process, continuous reinforcing fibers are integrated in a polymeric matrix of the hollow-chamber profile, and
- wherein the extrusion production process is used to produce at least one continuous fiber-reinforced core profile of the hollow-chamber profile comprising at least one hollow chamber, and the core profile is provided with an outer coating to improve a surface quality of the hollow-chamber profile,
wherein at least two separate core profiles are produced by means of the extrusion production process and are jointly covered by the outer coating in order to produce the hollow-chamber profile.
Which only requires that two separate core profiles are produces that are then jointly covered and does not explicitly require that they are distinct and separately produced core profiles, just that they are separate. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, separate and distinct core profiles are suggested by the prior art. Notably, Rehau suggests distinct hollow chambers 4 are separated by dividers 5 and enclosed by outer wall 6 to form the base profile 2 (FIG. 1, pp. 4+) and when combined with the extruded profiles of Schmidt would suggest forming distinct hollow chambers that are enclosed by an outer wall.
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 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
Prosecution Insights