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 June 10, 2026. Currently, claims 1-14 are pending in the application.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith (US Patent No 3,918,202).
Referring to claim 1: Smith teaches an assembly for use with a window that comprises a glazing unit with at least one pane of glass, the assembly comprising a glazing bead (item 2) to extend around the periphery of the glazing unit, the glazing bead defining apertures (items 17 and 20) at locations at which a glazing bar is to fit, and at least one glazing bar (item 7) to extend across a face of the glazing unit, at least one end of the glazing bar comprising a spring-loaded pin (item 21) to engage with an aperture in the glazing bead, each aperture extending parallel to the face of the glazing unit, and the spring-loaded pin being movable along a line parallel to the face of the glazing unit to locate in the aperture, the glazing bar held securely such that it cannot fall off even if pulled away from the glazing unit (col 2, lines 65-68); wherein the spring-loaded pin is arranged within a channel of the glazing bar, the channel being of sufficient depth such that, in use, the spring-loaded pin can be pushed into the channel without the spring-loaded pin protruding from the channel (col 2, lines 52-54).
Referring to claim 6: Smith teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Smith teaches wherein the glazing bead has an outer face that slopes at an acute angle away from the face of the glazing unit, and the glazing bar also defines at least one outer face that slopes at an acute angle away from the face of the glazing unit (figure 5).
Referring to claim 11: Smith a glazing bar (item 7) for use in an assembly, the glazing bar comprising a spring-loaded pin (item 21) at at least one end, wherein the spring-loaded pin is arranged within a channel of the glazing bar, the channel being of sufficient depth such that, in use, the spring-loaded pin can be pushed into the channel without the spring-loaded pin protruding from the channel (col 2, lines 52-54).
Referring to claim 14: Smith teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Smith teaches wherein, when in use, the spring-loaded pin locates in the aperture and a wall defining the aperture engages with a surface of the spring-loaded pin that extends parallel to the line, such that, once engaged with the aperture in the glazing bead, the glazing bar cannot move in a direction perpendicular to the face of the glazing unit (figure 11).
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) 2, 3, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith.
Referring to claim 2: Smith teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Smith does not specifically teach each glazing bar comprises spring-loaded pins at each end. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to recognize that Smith indicating “at the ends f the bars…” (col 2, lines 46-50) would suggest the attachment mechanism is present in both ends of the bars. One of ordinary skill in the art could choose to use the same attachment mechanism at both ends to make operation simple.
Referring to claim 3: Smith teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Smith teaches each glazing bar comprises a fixed projecting pin (item 16) at one end. Smith does not specifically teach the fixed projecting pin at one end with the spring-loaded pin at the other end. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose any combination of attachment mechanisms taught by Smith to make attachment easier. Using the fixed pin in one end allows for installation of the bar after assembly by first aligning the fixed pin then installing the spring loaded end to finalize placement of the bar.
Referring to claim 7: Smith teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Smith does not specifically teach wherein the glazing bead is of a rigid plastic or of a metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the glazing bead from a rigid plastic or a metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) Rigid plastics are well known to be strong, lightweight, and weather resistant which increases maintenance free lifespans over wood.
Referring to claim 8: Smith teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as noted above. Smith does not teach wherein the glazing bead is formed by extrusion. However, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Referring to claim 9: Smith teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Smith does not specifically teach wherein the glazing bar is of a rigid plastic or of a metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the glazing bead from a rigid plastic or a metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) Rigid plastics are well known to be strong, lightweight, and weather resistant which increases maintenance free lifespans over wood.
Referring to claim 10: Smith teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. Smith does not teach wherein the glazing bead is formed by extrusion. However, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Rose (US Patent No 5,465,539).
Referring to claim 4: Smith teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Smith does not teach adhesive to adhere each glazing bar to the face of the glazing unit. However, Rose teaches adhesive (item 124) to adhere each glazing bar to the face of the glazing unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Smith with the adhesive taught by Rose in order to prevent the glazing bars from moving out of place between the two anchored ends.
Referring to claim 5: Smith and Rose teach all the limitations of claim 4 as noted above. Additionally, Rose teaches wherein the adhesive is in the form of double-sided adhesive tape (col 6, lines 54-55). A double sided tape is easy to work with.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Hardy (GB 2164694).
Referring to claim 12: Smith teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Smith does not teach the assembly further comprising one or more clips configured to attach the glazing bead to the periphery of the glazing unit. However, Hardy teaches the assembly further comprising one or more clips configured to attach the glazing bead to the periphery of the glazing unit (item 5C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Smith with the clip attachment taught by Hardy in order to allow for secure attachment of the glazing bead while allowing for removal if necessary.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Smith does not teach the specific spring loaded pins. However, the Examiner contends that the manner in which they are inserted provides no bearing. The pins of Smith would still be spring loaded to engage with the aperture in the glazing bead and as noted in the rejection above, would not protrude from the bars when retracted.
Additionally, Applicant has argued that in rejecting claim 6 by referencing figure 5 for the sloped surface, the Examiner as erred in incorporating a different attachment embodiment. The Examiner has referred to figure 5 as it shows the clearest interaction between the glazing bead and the bars.
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 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