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 .
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 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 8 and 15: It is unclear what “outside of an envelope of the shipping container” 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(s) 1-3, 5, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR (KR 200400151).
Referring to claim 1: KR teaches a corrugation cap (item 40) sized and configured to cover at least a portion of a lower edge of the aperture; and the corrugation cap configured for positioning thereon of a lower portion of a window within the window framing system (figure 6). KR does not specifically teach the corrugation caps covers corrugations. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the cap of KR would cover corrugations instead of the undulating surfaces of a log type wall as taught by KR.
Referring to claim 2: KR teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, KR teaches the corrugation cap is a C-shaped channel comprising inner and outer downwardly-directed portions configured for positioning adjacent inner and outer surfaces of the wall, respectively (figure 3).
Referring to claim 3: KR teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, KR teaches a header frame member; a footer frame member; and right and left side frame members (all item 30); the header frame member, the footer frame member, and the right and left side frame members configured for connection to form a quadrilateral frame for receipt of the window (item 20) therein (figure 6).
Referring to claim 5: KR teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. Additionally, KR teaches wherein the footer frame member is disposed between the corrugation cap and the lower portion of the window (figure 6).
Referring to claim 9: KR teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. KR does not specifically teach the header frame member, the footer frame member, and the right and left side frame members are composed of metal. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the components out of 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) Metal is well known for its durability in frame members.
Referring to claim 10: KR teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. KR does not specifically teach wherein the header frame member, the footer frame member, and the right and left side frame members are treated with a corrosion-resistant coating. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a corrosion resistant coating in order to preserve the integrity of the components. It is well known in the art to coat window frame elements with a paint to prevent corrosion and achieve a desired color.
Referring to claim 11: KR teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. KR does not specifically teach wherein the corrugation cap is of sufficient size to cover the corrugations adjacent thereto when the corrugations are buckled inwardly or outwardly. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the cap would be designed to cover any ends of wall members as shown by KR in order to frame up the opening in the wall with a clean face. KR demonstrates the cap covering the ends of uneven faces of log type materials and therefore would be capable of being designed to cover corrugated metal ends as well.
Referring to claim 12: KR teaches all the structural limitations of the instant claim as rejected above. KR does not specifically teach the method steps. However, one of ordinary skill would recognize that by KR showing the final product in place it would have been obvious to arrive at the final product using the instant method steps to arrive at the final product.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 7, 13, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR in view of Carlson et al. (US PGPub No 2012/0102858) (“Carlson”).
Referring to claim 4: KR teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. They do not teach each of the header frame member, the footer frame member, and the right and left side frame members comprises an inwardly-directed flange to form a flange mounting perimeter, to which flange mounting perimeter the window is configured for mounting. However, Carlson teaches each of the header frame member, the footer frame member, and the right and left side frame members comprises an inwardly-directed flange to form a flange mounting perimeter, to which flange mounting perimeter the window is configured for mounting (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by KR with the flange taught by Carlson in order to allow for window insertion and mounting within the frame.
Referring to claim 6: KR teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. KR does not teach further comprising a rain drip member mounted on an upper surface of the header frame member, the rain drip member configured to receive water on an upper surface thereof and direct the water outwardly away from the wall. However, Carlson teaches further comprising a rain drip member (item 10.5) mounted on an upper surface of the header frame member, the rain drip member configured to receive water on an upper surface thereof and direct the water outwardly away from the wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by KR with the drip member taught by Carlson in order to prevent rain water from running into the window. Drip members are commonly installed over wall penetrations in order to add a layer of protection from water damage.
Referring to claim 7: KR teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. KR does not teach wherein the right and left side frame members comprise tabs for use in aligning the right and left side frame members with the header frame member and the footer frame member. However, Carlson teaches wherein the right and left side frame members comprise tabs for use in aligning the right and left side frame members with the header frame member and the footer frame member (tab extending from item F).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by KR with the tabs taught by Carlson in order to aid in connecting adjacent frame members. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to recognize that the tabs would be present or capable of being present around all frame members.
Referring to claim 13: KR teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. KR does not teach wherein the right and left side frame members comprise upper and lower tabs to allow alignment with the header frame member and the footer frame member, respectively, as part of the forming of step b. However, Carlson teaches wherein the right and left side frame members comprise upper and lower tabs to allow alignment with the header frame member and the footer frame member, respectively, as part of the forming of step b (tab extending from item F).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by KR with the tabs taught by Carlson in order to aid in connecting adjacent frame members. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to recognize that the tabs would be present or capable of being present around all frame members.
Referring to claim 16: KR teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. They do not teach wherein the window framing system comprises inwardly-directed flanges forming a flange mounting perimeter, the method further comprising at step d. securing the window to the flange mounting perimeter. However, Carlson teaches wherein the window framing system comprises inwardly-directed flanges forming a flange mounting perimeter, the method further comprising at step d. securing the window to the flange mounting perimeter (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by KR with the flange taught by Carlson in order to allow for window insertion and mounting within the frame.
Referring to claim 17: KR teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. KR does not teach further comprising applying a sealant to the window framing system before receiving the window therein at step c. However, Carlson teaches a sealant (item 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device using KR with the characteristic of having a sealant as taught by Carlson in order to provide protection against weather intrusion at any location along the frame and opening connection.
Referring to claim 1: KR teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. KR does not teach further comprising before step f., installing a rain drip member on top of the header frame member, the rain drip member configured to receive water on an upper surface thereof and direct the water outwardly away from the window framing system. However, Carlson teaches a rain drip member on top of the header frame member (item 10.5), the rain drip member configured to receive water on an upper surface thereof and direct the water outwardly away from the window framing system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device using KR with the drip member taught by Carlson in order to further protect the opening and window. Drip members are commonly installed over wall penetrations in order to add a layer of protection from water damage. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform this step at any point in the process that allows for easy installation without stepping backwards to install.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14, 18, and 20 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.
Conclusion
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