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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites “the main gasket and alignment spline raceway” is configured to receive a flexible waterproofing material, which is confusing. How is the main gasket and alignment spline raceway configured to receive a flexible waterproofing material? Isn’t the main gasket and alignment spline raceway configured to receive the alignment spline, the main gasket located in the alignment spline main gasket raceway? It is assumed the claim recites the at least one secondary gasket connection raceway configured to receive a flexible waterproofing material that provides a dry seal at the joint.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 12-14 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebmann (8,966,839) in view of Subra (8,250,819).
12. Rebmann, figs. 1-5, teaches an article of manufacture (window assembly), comprising a polymer C-channel structural component (the frame members are C-Channel as broadly recited, as at least the inner portion is C-channel in cross section),
a plurality of corner connector insert raceways (106, one on each end) capable of connecting the FRP C-channel structural component to at least one other FRP C-channel structural component to assemble a frame assembly (another C-channel component could be butted up against the channel end instead of a corner connector);
as best understood, a main gasket 70 and alignment spline raceway (U-channel for 26), the raceway configured for receiving an alignment spline (the edge of panel 26 acts as a spline or key fitting into the groove just as the edge of panel 5 fits into the groove);
at least one secondary gasket connection raceway (the raceway for seal 82);
as best understood, the main gasket, alignment spline, and secondary gasket connection raceway provide a dry seal (all these components act together to seal out water) for at least one joint between the frame assembly and at least one other frame assembly.
Redmann does not expressly teach the polymer is fiber reinforced. Subra teaches a polymer is fiber reinforced, col. 5, lines 28-32. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the polymer to be fiber reinforced for strength.
13. Rebmann in view of Subra teaches the article of manufacture of claim 1, Rebmann further teaching the C-channel structural component is a straight C-channel structural component, fig. 3.
14. Rebmann in view of Subra teaches the article of manufacture of claim 1, Rebmann further comprising a gasket raceway capable of use as a glass seal because, as seen in at least fig. 2, a groove is formed between 122 and vertical wall 50, glass capable of being sealed in this corner raceway.
Claims 15 and 17 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebmann in view of Subra and Koo (KR2010/0065630).
15. Rebmann, figs. 1-5, teaches a building system, comprising:
a frame assembly comprising:
a plurality of polymer C-channel structural components (the frame members are C-Channel as broadly recited, as at least the inner portion is C-channel in cross section);
and a plurality of polymer corner connectors 98 that join together the plurality of polymer C-channel structural components;
the plurality of polymer C-channel structural components and the plurality of polymer corner connectors configured to employ a flexible waterproofing material 86 that provides a dry seal for at least one joint where the plurality of frame assemblies meet.
Redmann does not expressly teach a plurality of the frame assemblies or the polymer is fiber reinforced. Subra teaches a polymer is fiber reinforced, col. 5, lines 28-32. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the polymer to be fiber reinforced for strength. Koo teaches an article of manufacture corner connector and the channel structural component is part of a panelized wall assembly, fig. 5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the article of manufacture FRP corner connector and the FRP C-channel structural component of claim 1 to be part of a panelized wall assembly for versatility.
17. Rebmann in view of Subra and in further view of Koo teaches the building system of claim 15, Rebmann further teaching the C-channel structural components and corner connectors have, as best understood, a main gasket 70 and alignment spline raceway (the U-channel for 26), the raceway configured for receiving an alignment spline (panel 26 edge is a spline just as applicants panel 5 edge is a spline); and the C-channel structural components and corner connectors have at least one secondary gasket connection raceway (118 and 82); the main gasket and alignment spline and the at least one secondary gasket connection raceway being capable of employing, as best understood, the flexible waterproofing material that provides the dry seal because they all combine to (in combination with a rubber seal) seal water out of the building.
Claim 16 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebmann in view of Subra and in further view of Koo and Oppenhuizen (4,905,334).
16. Rebmann does not expressly teach a flexible epoxy is employed to join together the corner connector with the FRP C-channel structural component, the flexible epoxy being configured to provide a uniform coefficient of thermal expansion throughout the panelized wall assembly. Oppenhuizen, col. 7, lines 11-13, teaches an epoxy is employed to join together corner connector with channel structural components. Oppenhuizen does not expressly teach the epoxy is flexible. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for flexible epoxy to be employed to join together the corner connector with the FRP C-channel structural component for strength, and to be flexible for stress reduction, the flexible epoxy being capable of providing a uniform coefficient of thermal expansion throughout the panelized wall assembly at least because of the flexibility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to the argument that “Independent claim 12 recites "a flexible waterproofing material that provides a dry seal for at least one joint between the frame assembly and at least one other frame assembly. The Office mapped this limitation to Rebman on the theory that "another C-channel component could be butted up against the channel end instead of a corner connector." This reasoning is respectfully speculative and unsupported by the reference. Rebman discloses a single window-covering assembly and neither discloses nor suggests a second frame assembly or a joint between two frame assemblies. That another component "could be" added reflects impermissible hindsight rather than any teaching, suggestion, or motivation found in Rebman”, Redman teaches a flexible waterproofing material (the grommet) that provides a dry seal for at least one joint between the frame assembly and at least one other frame assembly, and another C-channel component is capable of being butted up against the channel end instead of a corner connector. This reasoning is supported by the reference, as two Rebman frames could be positioned side-by-side such that the grommets contact. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Another component, in fact, could be added. The combination obviousness takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure.
As to the argument that “Independent claim 15 recites a plurality of frame assemblies and "a dry seal for at least one joint where the plurality of frame assemblies meet." The Office acknowledged that Rebman does not teach a plurality of frame assemblies and relied on Koo (KR 2010/0065630) to supply a panelized wall assembly. However, neither Rebman, Subra, nor Koo teaches or suggests employing the recited FRP C-channel structural components and FRP corner connectors to provide a flexible-waterproofing dry seal at a joint where a plurality of frame assemblies meet. Koo was relied upon only for a corner arrangement of a panelized wall and does not disclose the recited dry seal at the joint where the frame assemblies meet”, Rebman in view of Subra and Koo teaches the recited C-channel structural components and corner connectors to provide a flexible-waterproofing dry seal at a joint where a plurality of frame assemblies meet because Rebman teaches C-channel structural components and corner connectors forming a frame to provide a flexible-waterproofing dry seal at a frame outside, Koo teaching a plurality of frame assemblies, Rebman in view of Koo teaching Rebman in view of Subra and Koo teaching the recited C-channel structural components and corner connectors to provide a flexible-waterproofing dry seal at a joint where frame assemblies meet.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 7-11 are allowed because the best art of record, Rebmann in view of Subra, does not teach the C-channel structural component and corner connector comprising a main gasket and alignment spline raceway, a main seal alignment spline comprising a main gasket, the main seal alignment spline having a first longitudinal side received in the main gasket and alignment spline raceway and a second longitudinal side configured to be received in a main gasket and alignment spline raceway of a second frame assembly so as to join the first frame assembly to the second frame assembly, the main gasket configured to provide a dry seal at a panel joint where the first frame assembly meets the second frame assembly.
Claim 4 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
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 Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights