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 1-16 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 1 recites the limitation "the longitudinal direction" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear what direction comprises a longitudinal direction as different components may extend longitudinally in different directions. The examiner will examine as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the peripheral zone" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the length" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by “shear-resistantly relative to the infill in the longitudinal direction in a first length portion of at most 5% of the length of the outer profile but shear-enabledly over the remaining length.” The examiner will examine as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the outer edge" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the shear-resistant second length portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the length of the inner profile" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear what dimension is referred to as the length. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the shear-resistant connection" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear what comprises this connection, as it seems more than a single connection is present in the apparatus. The examiner will examine as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the length of the inner/outer profile" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the length of the end region" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, the term inner/outer profile renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear what components are required of the claim. The examiner will examine as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, in line 4, it is unclear what length is referred to as multiple lengths have been established in the claims. The examiner will examine as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear what comprises the peripheral zone of the infill as the infill was previously established as the panel/glazing and the groove is not positioned in the glazing. The examiner will examine as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
The claim set is replete with indefinite issues such as those exemplified in the rejections above. For brevity, each of the 35 USC 112 rejections will not be listed. Appropriate correction is required to provide clarity to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-9, 11, 13-14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fontijn, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0389753.
Regarding claim 1, Fontijn discloses a door assembly comprising a two-dimensional infill (400) having a plurality of first composite profiles (300) as surround, the first composite profiles each having an outer profile (one of 310), an inner profile (other of 310) and one or more first separation bars (320, 330) connecting the outer profile and inner profile, the connection between outer profile and inner profile being shear-enabled in the longitudinal direction (as the structure is the same), wherein the outer profile is mounted against an outer side of the peripheral zone of the infill shear-resistantly relative to the infill in the longitudinal direction in a first length portion of at most 5% of the length of the outer profile but shear-enabledly over the remaining length, and the inner profile is mounted against an inner side of a peripheral zone of the infill shear-resistantly relative to the infill in the longitudinal direction in a second length portion of at least the length of the first length portion (see Fig. 1, generally), as best understood in light of the specification.
Regarding claim 2, Fontijn discloses a door assembly wherein the infill is a sandwich panel and the peripheral zone is the outer edge of the infill itself (see Fig. 1, generally).
Regarding claim 3, Fontijn discloses a door assembly wherein the infill is multiple glazing and the peripheral zone is an additionally mounted edging (220; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Fontijn discloses a door assembly wherein the shear-resistant second length portion constitutes at least 25%, of the length of the inner profile (see figures), the shear-resistant second length portion being arranged distributed between a plurality of shear-resistant length sub-portions (inwardly directed flanges of components 210) over substantially the entire length of the inner profile, as best understood in light of the specification.
Regarding claim 5, Fontijn discloses a door assembly wherein the shear-resistant connection is arranged in an end region of the length of the inner profile/outer profile (at a door edge, see Fig. 1), wherein the length of the end region amounts to at most 10% of the length (of a vertical door length, see Fig. 1), as best understood in light of the specification.
Regarding claim 6, Fontijn discloses a door assembly wherein the shear-resistant connection is produced by way of one or more shear-resistant brackets (250), wherein the shear resistance arises through force-or form-locking connection of an appropriately shaped tongue (259) on the shear-resistant bracket in a groove (groove in which tongue is situated) of the peripheral zone of the infill, as best understood in light of the specification.
Regarding claim 7, Fontijn discloses a door assembly wherein the appropriately shaped tongue of the shear-resistant bracket has toothing (see Fig. 2; toothing on both upper and lower portions of each side).
Regarding claim 8, Fontijn discloses a door assembly wherein the groove has a corresponding mating toothing (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Fontijn discloses a door assembly wherein the shear-enabled connection is produced by way of one or more shear-enabled brackets (250) spaced in the longitudinal direction of the first composite profile, wherein the connection of the shear-enabled bracket to the infill arises through a sliding tongue guided in a groove in the peripheral zone of the infill (at 259), as best understood in light of the specification.
Regarding claim 11, Fontijn discloses a door assembly wherein the shear-resistant connection of the outer and inner profiles arises through a shear-resistant block (200) within the first length portion, which shear-resistant block is fastened to the two profiles (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Fontijn discloses a stationary or mobile flat element, comprising at least one composite structure according to claim 1 (door, title).
Regarding claim 14, Fontijn discloses a stationary or mobile flat element wherein a composite structure is mounted in stationary or mobile manner in or on a composite frame (210), wherein the composite frame comprises a plurality of second composite profiles (211), wherein the second composite profiles each have an outer shell (outer vertical portions), an inner shell (inner vertical portions) and one or more second separation bars (212) connecting the outer shell and inner shell.
Regarding claim 16, Fontijn discloses a stationary or mobile flat element a sliding element in a composite frame (210), wherein the sliding element has multiple glazing (410) as infill, wherein a number of rollers (230) are arranged distributed on the longitudinal side on the bottom of the profile structure in such a way that, in use, sliding of the sliding element proceeds by the rollers being guided on a running rail (256) mounted on the bottom part of the composite frame (see Figs. 1-2, generally), as best understood in light of the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontijn, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0389753.
Regarding claim 10, Fontijn discloses a door assembly but does not disclose wherein the sliding tongue of the shear-enabled bracket has a rounded cross- section. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a tongue portion with a rounded shape rather than a pointed shape as the same results will be produced, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Claim(s) 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontijn, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0389753 in view of Ortuzar et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0102783.
Regarding claim 12, Fontijn discloses a door assembly, but does not disclose wherein the first separation bars, the shear-resistant block, or the edging consist(s) of a material selected from the group consisting of: polyamide; polyolefin; polyester; acrylonitrile-butadiene- styrene; polyvinyl chloride or mixtures or combinations thereof, the material being fibre-reinforced. Ortuzar teaches use of a fiber reinforced polyamide on a door assembly (paragraph 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a fiber reinforced polyamide for its thermal and durable properties, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 15, Fontijn discloses a door assembly but does not disclose wherein the second separation bars consist of a material selected from the group consisting of: polyamide; polyolefin; polyester; acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene; polyvinyl chloride or mixtures or combinations thereof, the material being fibre-reinforced. Ortuzar teaches use of a fiber reinforced polyamide on a door assembly (paragraph 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a fiber reinforced polyamide for its thermal and durable properties, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights