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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 12-21 are currently pending.
Claims 19-21 are withdrawn from consideration.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 03/23/2026 have been entered.
Claims 12 has been amended.
The Section 102 and 103 rejections have been updated upon further search and/or consideration of the amended claims.
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.
Claim(s) 12-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dai (CN 203114043 U; machine translation provided in the IDS).
Regarding claims 12 and 15,
Dai teaches a plastic-aluminum section bar for use in doors and windows (a composite profile) (Dai: abstract; par. 0002). The composite profile comprises: a plastic inner member (2, a polymeric core) and an aluminum (a metal) external member (1, a side profile) which is configured to be provided on an external surface of said core profile (Dai: Figs. 1-3; par. 0010-0016). The composite profile intrinsically has a longitudinal direction Y, a depth direction X perpendicular to the Y-direction, and a height direction Z, perpendicular to the X and Y directions as the composite profile is a three-dimensional object. It is noted that any direction may be considered the X, Y, or Z direction so long as the other directions are perpendicular to each other along a cartesian coordinate plane.
PNG
media_image1.png
470
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
422
356
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claimed “coupling means” is interpreted in light of the specification as any means capable of attaching the polymeric core to the side profile. For example, hooks and slots are utilized in Applicants disclosure and in Dai. The claim is drawn to a composite profile comprising the polymeric core and the side profile; thus, the claimed embodiment is a product claim in which the two are attached together into a composite (the two pieces separately in an unattached state could not be considered a composite profile). As such, the claimed first set of coupling means and second set of coupling means will be met by an embodiment in which the polymeric core and the side profile are attached by either the first or second coupling means and is fully capable of being attached by an additional means (i.e. having another set of hooks and slots). That is, the act of repositioning from a first position to a second position is merely intended use or a functional limitation of the claimed profile composite and is not given patentable weight beyond being capable of performing the claimed repositioning.
As such, Figures 2 and 3 of Dai detail a first coupling means (such as items 5 and 6 in Figures 2 and 3) which attach the polymeric core and the side profile together to form the claimed composite while also having unlabeled hooks and slots in various locations on both the polymeric core and side profiles (such as the bottom and top hooks and slots) which would be fully capable of attaching the respective pieces together to some degree. As the side profile of Dai is shown to be repositioned over a distance, such as the height dimension in Figures 2 and 3, it may be considered to be repositioned in a Z-direction.
The limitation requiring the side profile and the polymeric core profile are “fixed to allow sawing or cutting the resulting combined profile in one operation to a predetermined length under an angle of between 5° and 85°” is functional language. See MPE 2173.05(g). As the claims meet the claimed structure and relationship between the side profile and the polymeric core, it would be expected to be able to be fixed to allow sawing or cutting the resulting combined profile in one operation to a predetermined length under the claimed angle.
Regarding claim 13,
Dai teaches the composite profile required by claim 12. Dai further teaches the polymeric core profile (2) comprises exterior walls defining a cavity divided in multiple chambers separated by inner walls (Dai: see adapted Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
377
405
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14,
Dai teaches the composite profile required by claim 13. Dai does not teach an embodiment in which the polymeric core profile (1) has a metallic reinforcement profile provided in any of said chambers and thus may be considered to be lacking a metallic reinforcement profile provided in said chambers.
Regarding claim 17,
Dai teaches the composite profile required by claim 12. Dai further teaches the addition of a second means of coupling as explained in the rejection of claim 12 above. As the composite profile of Dai is attached in a first coupling means location, such as shown in Figures 2 and 3, the claims are satisfied as the unlabeled second coupling means of Dai are fully capable of the side profile being coupled in a second position in which an external surface of the polymeric profile may be covered and may be larger than the first position depending on the manner in which it is connected.
Regarding claim 18,
Dai teaches the composite profile required by claim 12. Dai teaches a distance D, over which a side profile is positioned in the Z-direction when coupling to the polymeric core profile as explained in the rejection of claim 12, above (Dai: Figures 2 and 3). The coupling means (5 and 6) may be considered the first or second coupling means of the claims and the unlabeled hooks in slots above and below 5 and 6 may be considered the other coupling means. The act of repositioning is considered intended use or functional language of the claimed composite profile and is not given patentable weight beyond being fully capable of undergoing the action. The specific range that the distance of repositioning, such as between 1 and 5 mm, does not further limit the final structure of the claimed composite profile, but could read as the total distance the side profile is removed from the polymeric core (such as shown in Figure 2 of Dai) before re-coupling in another position and not necessarily anything involving the structure of said composite profile, such as the width/height of the polymeric core, or the length of the coupling hooks. As Dai teaches a first and second coupling means, as explained above, the claim is satisfied as Figure 2 and 3 of Dai show the coupling interaction is fully capable of being reversable and thus capable of being repositioned to one of the other hook/slot coupling means.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai in view of Morton et al. (US 2015/0128498 A1).
Regarding claim 16,
Dai teaches the composite profile required by claim 12. Dai is silent towards the composition of the polymeric core and is thus silent the polymeric core profile being made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
Morton teaches a main support frame for in windows which have metallic components (composite profile) (Morton: abstract; par. 0034 and 0044). Morton teaches the use of rigid plastics such as PVC for frame members (corresponds to a polymeric profile), as they have been shown to provide improved properties and resistance to weather events/impacts (Morton: par. 0001 and 0028).
Dai and Morton are in the corresponding field of composite profiles comprising polymeric core profiles for use in window frames. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use PVC as the polymeric core material of Dai to provide sufficient rigidity for use as a window frame in addition to providing improved weather related resistance as taught by Morton.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/23/2026 directed towards the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Dai does not teach or suggest a possible coupling beyond single intended assembly described in Figures 1-3 which would be stable or fixed in the claimed manner to arrive at the claimed combined profile that is capable of undergoing the claimed operation.
The argument is not found persuasive as the amended and argued limitation is a functional limitation as explained in the updated rejection above. That is, the limitation requiring the side profile and the polymeric core profile are “fixed to allow sawing or cutting the resulting combined profile in one operation to a predetermined length under an angle of between 5° and 85°” is functional language. See MPE 2173.05(g). As the claims meet the claimed structure and relationship between the side profile and the polymeric core, it would be expected to be able to be fixed to allow sawing or cutting the resulting combined profile in one operation to a predetermined length under the claimed angle.
As Dai meets the claimed structure of the combined profile required by the claims, as Dai does teach the additional coupling means as explained in the rejection above, it would be expected to be capable of undergoing the claimed cutting operation for the combined profile. Applicant has not provided evidence or persuasive reasoning as to why Dai couldn’t be cut in the claimed manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights