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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment dated May 8, 2026. Currently, claims 31-39, and 41-50 are pending in the application.
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(s) 31-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raico in view of Frederick et al. (US Patent No 11,434,635) (“Frederick”).
Referring to claim 31: Raico teaches a windowpane (item 11), a window frame (item 3) extending along a periphery of one side of said windowpane, and a connecting strip (item 2) arranged between said window frame and said windowpane, wherein said connecting strip is adhered to said windowpane by way of an adhesive (item 13) and said connecting strip is connected to said window frame by way of mechanical connectors (item 24) extending through through-holes in said connecting strip. Raico does not teach wherein said connecting strip is made from a composite material comprising between 20% and 95% glass fiber by weight. However, Frederick teaches a component made from a composite material comprising glass fibers (col 4, lines 34-37 and col 6, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Raico with the material taught by Frederick in order to provide a strip on a windowpane having specific thermal characteristics. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose a specific fiber content in order to maximize characteristics driven by the fiber content such as strength. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to claim 32: Raico and Frederick teach all the limitations of claim 31 as noted above. Additionally, Raico teaches wherein said mechanical connectors are screws or bolts (figures 1-4).
Referring to claim 33: Raico and Frederick teaches all the limitations of claim 31 as noted above. They do not teach wherein said connecting strip is made from a composite material comprising between 40% and 80% glass fiber by weight. However, Frederick teaches a component made from a composite material comprising glass fibers (col 4, lines 34-37 and col 6, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose a specific fiber content in order to maximize characteristics driven by the fiber content such as strength. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to claim 34: Raico teaches all the limitations of claim 31 as noted above. Raico does not teach wherein said connecting strip comprises a glass fiber reinforced polymer. However, Frederick teaches items 40 and 68 are made from a fiberglass composite (col 4, lines 34-37 and col 6, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Raico and make the connecting strip from a glass fiber reinforced material as taught by Frederick in order to create a strong and thermal resistant strip. Having the fiberglass a polymer is well known for its ease of manufacture and workability.
Referring to claim 35: Raico and Frederick teach all the limitations of claim 34 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein said polymer comprises polyester, polyurethane, or epoxy resin. However, the Examiner gives Official Notice that it is known in the art to use one of the listed polymers because of their ease of manufacture and ability to be modified once cured.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raico in view of Weiss et al. (US PGPub No 2013/0000232) (“Weiss”).
Referring to claim 36: Raico teaches all the limitations of claim 31 as noted above. Raico does not teach wherein said connecting strip comprises an adhesive trench extending along a windowpane side of said connecting strip facing said windowpane. However, Weiss teaches wherein said connecting strip comprises an adhesive trench (item 22a) extending along a windowpane side of said connecting strip facing said windowpane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Raico with the adhesive trench taught by Weiss in order to allow for an increase volume of adhesive between the window pain and the connecting strip to increase the bonding strength between the two.
Claim(s) 37-39, 41, 42, 48, and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raico.
Referring to claim 37: Raico teaches all the limitations of claim 31 as noted above. Raico does not specifically teach wherein said connecting strip is extending between 0.5 and 80 mm from said windowpane in a direction towards said window frame. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose any specific thickness of the connecting strip in order to balance strength and visibility of the connecting strip.
Referring to claim 38: Raico teaches all the limitations of claim 31 as noted above. Raico does not specifically teach wherein said connecting strip has a strip coefficient of thermal expansion, wherein a glass panel of said windowpane has a glass coefficient of thermal expansion and wherein the difference between said strip coefficient of thermal expansion and said glass coefficient of thermal expansion is less than 80%. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the thermal coefficient of the connecting strip to as closely match the glass pane as possible to prevent breaking of the bond between the strip and the panel.
Referring to claim 39: Raico teaches all the limitations of claim 31 as noted above. Raico does not teach wherein said windowpane is at least double-glazed to form insulated glazing of said window assembly. However, the Examiner gives Official Notice that it is well known to use multiple glazing window elements in order to improve efficiency of the windows.
Referring to claim 41: Raico teaches all the limitations of claim 31 as noted above. Raico does not specifically teach wherein said window frame comprises wood. However, the Examiner gives Official Notice that it is known in the art to make window frames out of wood because of their thermal properties.
Referring to claim 42: Raico teaches all the limitations of claim 31 as noted above. Raico does not specifically teach wherein the part of said connecting strip that is visible between said windowpane and said window frame is between 0.5 and 20 mm,. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the connecting strip of Raico to have any desired reveal in order to have a specific visibility or lack of visibility of the connecting strip.
Referring to claim 48: Raico teaches The method for assembling a window assembly, said method comprising the steps of: forming through-holes in a connecting strip, connecting said connecting strip to a window frame by way of mechanical connectors extending through said through-holes, and adhering said connecting strip to a windowpane along a periphery of one side of said windowpane by way of an adhesive (shown in figures 1-4 as the final product).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that Raico teaches the intermediate steps in order to reach the final product as shown in the figures and as rejected above.
Referring to claim 50: Raico teaches all the limitations of claim 31 as noted above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that Raico teaches a window in a building, wherein said window assembly is connected to said building through said window frame. The specific window taught by Raico is for installation into a building and the frame commonly connects the window pane to the building.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 43-47, and 49 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that forming the connecting strip from a composite material with the specific 20% to 95% glass fiber is highly important and inventive over Raico and Frederick. However, the Examiner reiterates that finding a specific value based on desired behavior is within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, the wide range of 20% to 95% glass fiber composition leads one to believe the specific value is not as critical as it can vary so widely. It does not demonstrate criticality with such a large range.
Conclusion
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 PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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 Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights