DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits responsive to applicant’s original disclosure filed on 7/29/2024. Note that two claims sets were filed on the same date that appear to be identical to one another. Claims 1-20 are pending and are under consideration.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 7/29/2024 is being considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“said host exterior-to-interior opening comprises a framed window with at least one pane” (claim 2);
“said host exterior-to-interior opening comprises a framed door with at least one pane” (claim 3);
“said shield is adjacent to a pane when used” (claim 13);
“said host exterior-to-interior opening comprises a framed window and alternately a framed door with at least one pane” (claim 17);
“a kit including…a set of user instructions” (claim 18)
“mounting said window protective assembly adjacent a pane to be protected against environmental elements for a host exterior-to-interior opening, said shield adjacent to said pane” (claim 19);
“adjusting said at least one brace such that said wedges are located tight inside respective corners of said host exterior-to-interior opening” (claim 19); and
“removing said window protective system when desired” (note that the window protective system is not shown to be installed on anything, in particular and thus removing the window protective system is not shown; claim 20).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figs. 1-9, the poor line quality renders part or all of the drawing illegible when reproduced. 37 CFR 1.84(l) (m) and (p)(1). 37 CFR 1.84(l) recites, “[a]ll drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.” Applicant is requested to submit replacement sheets that have drawings that have darker lines.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the term Rubbermaid, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 19-20, “the steps” and “the step” as recited in the claims is objected to because the limitations lack antecedent basis. The claims are drawn to method claims and it is already assumed that the claim requires steps. This objection can be overcome by deleting “the steps” and “the step”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-20 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.
Claim 17, “alternately a framed door” (line 12) renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "alternately"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 19, “said window protective assembly”, “said at least one extender rod”, “said at least one brace”, “said at least one wedge”, “said shield”, “said bolts and nuts” are indefinite because the limitations lack antecedent basis. Note that the claim is written in independent form and does not require any limitations from any preceding claims.
The remainder of claims in this section are rejected by virtue of dependency on a rejected base claim.
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)(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 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Descoteau (US 1571661).
Claim 1, Descoteau provides a window protective system comprising:
a window protective assembly (Fig. 1) including,
at least one extender rod (7; note that the extender rod was treated as not being required to extend or be extendable, as exceedingly broadly claimed);
at least one brace (brace members 1, 2, 3, 4 that are slidably connected to one another; Fig. 1);
at least one wedge (6; “each of said braces [7] having its ends connected to diagonally opposite corner pieces 6”; page 2 left, column, lines 10-25); and
a shield 5; and
wherein said window protective assembly comprises said at least one extender rod, said at least one brace, said at least one wedge, and said shield in functional combination to provide custom-fit protection against environmental elements for a host exterior-to-interior opening (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “custom-fit protection against environmental elements for a host exterior-to-interior opening”, Descoteau’s frame members 1, 2, 3, 4 are slidable relative to one another to be adjust to fit different sizes of window frames and are suitable to provide custom-fit protection against environmental elements for a host exterior-to-interior opening, as the woven wire screen forming the shield 5 would nonetheless provide at least some protection, thus Descoteau meets the limitation, as exceedingly broadly claimed; page 1, right column, lines 101-110).
Claim 4, Descoteau further provides wherein said at least one extender rod comprises at least two of said extender rods (multiple elements 7), said extender rods able to rotate in relation to each other via at least one base (base at 9; Figs. 2-4), said at least one base having a fastener 8 passed through such as to allow rotation, when desired to enable said custom-fit protection (it is understood that the extender rods are permitted to rotate when desired to enable said custom-fit protection page 2, left column, lines 25-55).
Claim 5, Descoteau further provides wherein said extender rods are able to be manipulated into an X configuration (Fig. 1).
Claim 6, Descoteau further provides wherein said at least one brace is adjustable and is connected to said extender rods to support said X configuration during an in-use condition when providing said custom-fit protection (page 1, right col., lines 101-110).
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) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 5507118) in view of Descoteau (US 1571661).
Claim 1, Brown teaches a window protective system comprising:
a window protective assembly 1 including,
at least one extender rod 37;
at least one brace 51;
a shield 3; and
wherein said window protective assembly comprises said at least one extender rod, said at least one brace, and said shield in functional combination to provide custom-fit protection against environmental elements for a host exterior-to-interior opening (it is understood that the window protective assembly is suitable to provide custom-fit protection against environmental elements for a window opening, as the extender rods 37 are adjustable; col. 2, lines 53-67; col. 4, lines 1-9).
Although Brown teaches the extender rods extending into the corners of the window frame (Brown col. 4, lines 33-50), Brown does not teach at least one wedge. However, such wedge elements are known in the art and are used to provide secure attachment to frames. Descoteau teaches a window protective system comprising a window protective assembly comprising extender rods 7 comprising wedges 6 to secure the extender rods against the window frame (Descoteau “each of said braces [7] having its ends connected to diagonally opposite corner pieces 6”; page 2 left, column, lines 10-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the connection of the extender rod to the exterior-to-interior opening by using a wedge, with the reasonable expectation of success of utilizing a known means to connect the extender rods to the exterior-to-interior opening without the need to drill holes in the exterior-to-interior opening frame.
Claim 2, Brown further teaches wherein said host exterior-to-interior opening comprises a framed window with at least one pane (col. 1, lines 50-60; Fig. 1).
Claim 4, Brown further teaches wherein said at least one extender rod comprises at least two of said extender rods (each labeled 37; Fig. 1), said extender rods able to rotate in relation to each other via at least one base (the rods may be threaded or a screw may be used, which would permit rotation when loosened; col. 4, lines 39-44; base shown in Fig. 3), said at least one base having a fastener 45 passed through such as to allow rotation, when desired to enable said custom-fit protection (Fig. 3).
Claim 5, Brown further teaches wherein said extender rods are able to be manipulated into an X configuration (Figs. 1-2).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Descoteau (US 1571661) in view of Clewis (US 20020017065).
Claims 2-3, Descoteau teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Although, Descoteau further teaches the window protective system being for use with a window, presumably a window with at least one pane under the plain meaning of window, Descoteau does not teach [claim 2] wherein said host exterior-to-interior opening comprises a framed window with at least one pane, and [claim 3] wherein said host exterior-to-interior opening comprises a framed door with at least one pane. However, Clewis teaches a wind storm resistant barrier for protecting glass windows and doors, wherein a host exterior-to-interior opening comprises a framed window with at least one pane [0054], and wherein said host exterior-to-interior opening comprises a framed door with at least one pane [0054]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the protective system with a host exterior-to-interior opening comprising a framed window or door with at least one pane, with the reasonable expectation of success of protecting the at least one pane on the window or door.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 5507118) in view of Descoteau (US 1571661) and further in view of Clewis (US 20020017065).
Claim 3, Brown teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Although, Brown further teaches the window protective system being for use with a window, presumably a window with at least one pane under the plain meaning of window, Brown does not teach wherein said host exterior-to-interior opening comprises a framed door with at least one pane. However, Clewis teaches a wind storm resistant barrier for protecting glass windows and doors, wherein said host exterior-to-interior opening comprises a framed door with at least one pane [0054]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the protective system with a host exterior-to-interior opening comprising a framed window or door with at least one pane, with the reasonable expectation of success of protecting the at least one pane on the window or door.
Claim(s) 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 5507118) in view of Descoteau (US 1571661) and further in view of Johnson (US 7988137).
Claim 6, Brown and Descoteau teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as above. Brown does not teach wherein said at least one brace is adjustable and is connected to said extender rods to support said X configuration during an in-use condition when providing said custom-fit protection. However, Johnson teaches a frame (Fig. 2) in an X configuration defined by extender rods (20; Fig. 2), and a brace (80; note that the brace can be a chain, a rod, a beam, a bolt and/or any other coupling element as would be known by one having skill in the art suitable to maintain the position of the frame members col. 3, lines 57-67; Fig. 2) that is adjustable and is connected to said extender rods to support said X configuration during an in-use condition (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the brace of Brown such that said at least one brace is adjustable and is connected to said extender rods to support said X configuration during an in-use condition when providing said custom-fit protection, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means to maintain the position of the extender rods as modified in the rejection of claim 1 with the extender rods not extending into the holes.
Claim 7, as modified above, the combination of Brown, Descoteau and Johnson teaches all the limitations of claim 6, and further teaches wherein said at least one brace is removably couplable to said extender rods via a bolt and nuts (Brown 52; Johnson bolts extending through 20 and received by nuts; Fig. 2).
Claim 8, as modified above, the combination of Brown, Descoteau and Johnson teaches all the limitations of claim 7, and further teaches wherein said at least one wedge comprises at least two of said wedges (Descoteau Fig. 1), each affixed at an opposing end of said extender rods (Fig. 1).
Claim 9, as modified above, the combination of Brown, Descoteau and Johnson teaches all the limitations of claim 8, and further teaches wherein said at least one wedge comprises four said wedges (Descoteau Fig. 1).
Claim 10, as modified above, the combination of Brown, Descoteau and Johnson teaches all the limitations of claim 7, and further teaches wherein said bolt passes through said at least one brace and said extender rod (Johnson Fig. 2) and said nut is coupled with said bolt to combine said at least one brace and said extender rod for use (Johnson Fig. 2).
Claim 11, as modified above, the combination of Brown, Descoteau and Johnson teaches all the limitations of claim 10, and further teaches wherein said at least one brace is able to be lengthened and shortened via adjustment (Johnson it is understood that the chain, rod or other selected coupling element 80 is suitable to be lengthened and shortened via adjustment to obtain a desired configuration of the extender rods (Johnson col. 3, lines 55-67; Fig. 2).
Claim 12, as modified above, the combination of Brown, Descoteau and Johnson teaches all the limitations of claim 11, and further teaches wherein said shield is affixable to said extender rods (Brown via 51; Figs. 1-2).
Claim 13, as modified above, the combination of Brown, Descoteau and Johnson teaches all the limitations of claim 12, and further teaches wherein said shield is adjacent to a pane when used (it is understood that said shield is adjacent to a pane when used; Fig. 4).
Claim 14, as modified above, the combination of Brown, Descoteau and Johnson teaches all the limitations of claim 13, and further teaches wherein said shield comprises flexible material (“Brown wood or Plexiglas, for example” col. 2, lines 53-60).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 5507118) in view of Descoteau (US 1571661) and further in view of Johnson (US 7988137) and further in view of Framer et al. (US 20100146881) (‘Framer’).
Claim 15, Brown, Descoteau and Johnson teach all the limitations of claim 14 as above. Brown does not teach wherein said flexible material comprises rubber. However, Framer teaches a hurricane window cover comprising a flexible material comprising rubber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the material of the flexible material to be rubber, with the reasonable expectation of using a known material to cover the window to absorb impacts of wind borne objects (Framer [0024]), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 5507118) in view of Descoteau (US 1571661) further in view of Johnson (US 7988137) further in view of Framer et al. (US 20100146881) (‘Framer’) and further in view of Clewis (US 20020017065).
Claim 16, Brown, Descoteau and Johnson teach all the limitations of claim 14 as above. Brown does not teach wherein said wedges comprise said flexible material. However, Framer teaches a hurricane window cover comprising a flexible material comprising rubber. Further, Clewis teaches extender rods (21, 28) comprising wedges (26, 31) that compress slightly to generate an interference or jam fit with a window frame (Clewis [0064]), the wedges comprising rubber (Clewis [0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the material of the flexible material to be rubber, wherein said wedges comprise said flexible material, with the reasonable expectation of using a known material to cover the window to absorb impacts of wind borne objects (Framer [0024]) and to use a known material to generate an interference or jam fit with the frame members (Clewis [0064]), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim 17, Brown teaches a window protective system comprising:
a window protective assembly 1 including,
at least one extender rod 37;
at least one brace 51;
a shield 3;
wherein said window protective assembly comprises said at least one extender rod, said at least one brace, and said shield in functional combination to provide custom-fit protection against environmental elements for a host exterior-to-interior opening (it is understood that the window protective assembly is suitable to provide custom-fit protection against environmental elements for a window opening, as the extender rods 37 are adjustable; col. 2, lines 53-67; col. 4, lines 1-9);
wherein said host exterior-to-interior opening comprises a framed window and alternately a framed door with at least one pane (window col. 1, lines 50-60; Fig. 1);
wherein said at least one extender rod comprises at least two of said extender rods (Figs. 1-2), said extender rods able to rotate in relation to each other via at least one base (the rods may be threaded or a screw may be used, which would permit rotation when loosened col. 4, lines 39-44), said at least one base having a fastener passed through such as to allow rotation (Figs. 1-4), when desired to enable said custom-fit protection (Figs. 1-4);
wherein said extender rods are able to be manipulated into an X configuration (Figs. 1-4);
wherein said shield is affixable to said extender rods (via 51);
wherein said shield is adjacent to a pane when used (Fig. 4);
wherein said shield comprises flexible material (wood or Plexiglas, for example” col. 2, lines 53-60);
Although Brown teaches the extender rods extending into the corners of the window frame (Brown col. 4, lines 33-50), Brown does not teach at least one wedge, wherein said at least one brace is adjustable and is connected to said extender rods to support said X configuration during an in-use condition when providing said custom-fit protection, wherein said at least one brace is removably couplable to said extender rods via a bolt and nuts, wherein said at least one wedge comprises exactly four of said wedges, each affixed at opposing end of said extender rods, wherein said bolt passes through said at least one brace and said extender rod and said nut is coupled with said bolt to combine said at least one brace and said extender rod for use, wherein said at least one brace is able to be lengthened and shortened via adjustment, wherein said flexible material comprises rubber; and wherein said wedges comprise said flexible material.
However, such wedge elements are known in the art and are used to provide secure attachment to frames. Descoteau teaches a window protective system comprising a window protective assembly comprising extender rods 7 comprising exactly four wedges 6 to secure the extender rods against the window frame (Descoteau “each of said braces [7] having its ends connected to diagonally opposite corner pieces 6”; page 2 left, column, lines 10-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the connection of the extender rod to the exterior-to-interior opening by using a wedge, with the reasonable expectation of success of utilizing a known means to connect the extender rods to the exterior-to-interior opening without the need to drill holes in the exterior-to-interior opening frame.
Further, Johnson teaches a frame (Fig. 2) in an X configuration defined by extender rods (20; Fig. 2), and a brace (80; note that the brace can be a chain, a rod, a beam, a bolt and/or any other coupling element as would be known by one having skill in the art suitable to maintain the position of the frame members col. 3, lines 57-67; Fig. 2) that is adjustable and is connected to said extender rods to support said X configuration during an in-use condition (Fig. 2), wherein said at least one brace is removably couplable to said extender rods via a bolt and nuts (Johnson bolts extending through 20 and received by nuts; Fig. 2), wherein said bolt passes through said at least one brace and said extender rod (Johnson Fig. 2) and said nut is coupled with said bolt to combine said at least one brace and said extender rod for use (Johnson Fig. 2), wherein said at least one brace is able to be lengthened and shortened via adjustment (Johnson it is understood that the chain, rod or other selected coupling element 80 is suitable to be lengthened and shortened via adjustment to obtain a desired configuration of the extender rods (Johnson col. 3, lines 55-67; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the window protective system such that said at least one brace is adjustable and is connected to said extender rods to support said X configuration during an in-use condition when providing said custom-fit protection, wherein said at least one brace is removably couplable to said extender rods via a bolt and nuts, wherein said bolt passes through said at least one brace and said extender rod and said nut is coupled with said bolt to combine said at least one brace and said extender rod for use, wherein said at least one brace is able to be lengthened and shortened via adjustment, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means to maintain the position of the extender rods as modified without requiring holes to be drilled into the window frame.
Regarding the materials of the shield and the wedges, Framer teaches a hurricane window cover comprising a flexible material comprising rubber. Further, Clewis teaches extender rods (21, 28) comprising wedges (26, 31) that compress slightly to generate an interference or jam fit with a window frame (Clewis [0064]), the wedges comprising rubber (Clewis [0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the material the shield being a flexible material to be rubber, and wherein said wedges comprise said flexible material, with the reasonable expectation of using a known material to cover the window to absorb impacts of wind borne objects (Framer [0024]) and to use a known material to generate an interference or jam fit with the frame members (Clewis [0064]), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 5507118) in view of Descoteau (US 1571661) further in view of Johnson (US 7988137) further in view of Framer et al. (US 20100146881) (‘Framer’) further in view of Clewis (US 20020017065) and further in view of Goodwin (US 6293059).
Claims 18, Brown, Descoteau, Johnson, Framer and Clewis teach all the limitations of claim 17 as above. Brown does not teach the window protective system being a kit and including a set of user instructions. However, Goodwin teaches a window protective system being a kit and including user instructions (col. 6, lines 25-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the window protective system by making it a kit including said window protective assembly including said at least one extender rod, said at least one brace, said at least one wedge; said shield, and said bolts and nuts; and a set of user instructions, with the reasonable expectation of success of simplifying the purchasing and installation of components forming the window protective system for a consumer or installer.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 5507118) in view of Descoteau (US 1571661) and further in view of Johnson (US 7988137).
Claim 19, as modified above, the combination of Brown, Descoteau and Johnson teaches all the limitations of claims 1-14 as above (as best understood, see 112b rejection above pertaining to the dependency of claim 19) a method of using a window protective system 1 comprising the steps of:
providing said window protective system (see rejection of claims 1 and 17 as above) comprising said window protective assembly (see rejection of claims 1 and 17 as above; Brown 1) including said at least one extender rod (see rejection of claims 1 and 17 as above; Brown 37), said at least one brace (Brown 51; Johnson 80), said at least one wedge (Descoteau 6); said shield (Brown 3), and said bolts and nuts (Brown 52; Johnson nuts and bolts in Fig. 2);
mounting said window protective assembly adjacent a pane to be protected against environmental elements for a host exterior-to-interior opening, said shield adjacent to said pane (Brown Fig. 4);
adjusting said at least one brace such that said wedges are located tight inside respective corners of said host exterior-to-interior opening; and
tightening said nuts and bolts to a suitable positioning for an in-use condition (Johnson Fig. 2).
Although Brown teaches at least one brace for guiding the extender rods (Brown Fig. 4), Brown does not teach adjusting said at least one brace such that said wedges are located tight inside respective corners of said host exterior-to-interior opening. However, as noted above in the rejections of claims 1-14, Descoteau teaches wedges located tight inside respective corners of a host exterior-to-interior opening (Descoteau “each of said braces [7] having its ends connected to diagonally opposite corner pieces 6”; page 2 left, column, lines 10-25), and Johnson teaches using at least one brace to hold extender rods in a desired position (Johnson; note that the brace can be a chain, a rod, a beam, a bolt and/or any other coupling element as would be known by one having skill in the art suitable to maintain the position of the frame members col. 3, lines 57-67; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of using Brown by incorporating at least one brace and wedges, and adjusting said at least one brace such that said wedges are located tight inside respective corners of said host exterior-to-interior opening, and tightening said nuts and bolts to a suitable positioning for an in-use condition, with the reasonable expectation of success of installing the window protective system in a window opening using known means without being required to drill holes into the window frame.
Claim 20, Brown further teaches the step of removing said window protective system when desired (removably mounted; col. 2, lines 64-67).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635