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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species IV in the reply filed on 18 May 2026 is acknowledged. The Applicant asserts that Claims 1-13 and 21-28 read on the election. However, the Examiner argues that Claims 12, 21 and 24-25 are outside the elected species and not found in Figures 13-22 and are thus withdrawn from Examination.
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13, 22, 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 10,814,369 to Hooper et al.
Regarding claim 1, Hooper teaches in Figure 2 [annotated below], a building component (10) [window assembly (Column 7, Lines 45-46)] comprising: an insulated glass unit (50) [glazing (Column 7, Line 58)] including: a first glass unit (50a) (Column 8, Line 8) having an outer surface; and a second glass pane (50c) (Column 8, Line 8) having an outer surface, wherein the second glass pane (50c) is spaced from the first glass pane (50a), the first glass pane (50a) and the second glass pane (50c) defining a pocket (Z) therebetween, wherein a central plane (Y) extends through the pocket (Z) and is spaced equal distances from the first glass pane (50a) and the second glass pane (50c); a frame (30) [rail (Column 7, Line 64)] supporting the insulating glazing unit (50), the frame (30) including a first side, a second side and a middle portion intermediate the first side and the second side, the first glass panel (50a) of the insulating glass unit (50) is an outermost pane of the first side of the frame (30) and the second glass pane of the insulating glass unit (50) is an outermost pane on the second side of the frame (30); and an insulating material (33) [structural foam (Column 7, Line 67)] in the middle portion of the frame (30), the insulating material (33) defining a continuous frame thermal break (X) (Column 8, Lines 14-18) circumscribing the insulated glass unit (50) [see Figure 1A] and extending through the frame (30), wherein the central plane (Y) extends through the insulating material (33) of the frame thermal break (X) and forms a common central plane (W) of the building component (10), wherein the frame thermal break (X) has a width, wherein the pocket (Z) has a width that is less than the width of the frame thermal break (X), wherein the insulated glass unit (50) is connected to the frame (30) such that the position of the insulation glass unit (50) if fixed (Column 1, Line 19) relative to the frame (30). Hooper is silent about the exact width of the frame thermal break. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed width for the frame thermal break since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed frame thermal break width since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a width solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the width of Hooper would perform equally well.
PNG
media_image1.png
459
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Hooper teaches in Figure 2, a distance between a central plane of the frame thermal break and the central plane of the pocket but is silent as to this exact distance. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed distance between the central plane of the frame thermal break and the central plane of the pocket since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed distance since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a width solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the distance of Hooper would perform equally well.
Regarding claim 4, Hooper teaches in Figure 2, the width of the frame thermal break but is silent about the exact width of the frame thermal break. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed width for the frame thermal break since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed frame thermal break width since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a width solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the width of Hooper would perform equally well.
Regarding claim 5, Hooper teaches in Figure 2, a distance between a central plane of the frame thermal break and the central plane of the pocket but is silent as to this exact distance. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed distance between the central plane of the frame thermal break and the central plane of the pocket since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed distance since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a width solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the distance of Hooper would perform equally well.
Regarding claim 6, Hooper teaches in Figures 1A and 17, the frame (30) includes a header (46), a sill (48), jambs (22 and 24), and corner keys (1082), wherein each corner key (1082) extends into a first opening in one of the header (46) and the sill (48) and into a second opening in one of the jamb (22/24) to form a corner of the frame (30).
Regarding claim 7, Hooper teaches in Figure 2, cladding (37) connected to the frame (30), wherein the cladding (37) includes metal [aluminum (Column 7, Line 66)].
Regarding claim 8, Hooper teaches in Figure 2 [annotated above], the cladding (37) has a keyway (A) and the frame (30) has a key (B) that extends into the keyway (A), wherein the keyway (A) is sized to allow the frame (30) and the cladding (37) to move relative to each other.
Regarding claim 9, Hooper teaches in Figure 2 [annotated below], the frame (30) defines a cavity (C) that extends between the first side and the second side and inhibits moisture (Column 14, Lines 9-12) from the first side from contacting a material [the insulation] on the second side.
Regarding claim 10, Hooper teaches in Figure 2 [annotated above], the frame (30) includes a seal (G1) extending at least partially along the cavity (C), wherein the seal (G1) at least partially defines an opening (D) to allow moisture to exit the cavity (C).
Regarding claim 11, Hooper teaches in Figure 45, the building component (2508) in combination with a wall (2504) of a structure (2500) in which the building component (2508) is mounted, the structure (2500) including an interior and an exterior, the building component (2508) is mounted in the wall (2504) such that the first glass pane is on the exterior of the structure (2500) and the second glass pane is on the interior of the structure (2500).
Regarding claim 13, Hooper teaches the insulating material has a thermal conductance in the range of 0.21-0.84 [0.5 (Column 1, Lines 46-49)].
Regarding claim 22, Hooper teaches in Figure 2 [annotated above], a building component (10) [window assembly (Column 7, Lines 45-46)] comprising: an insulated glass unit (50) [glazing (Column 7, Line 58)] including: a first glass unit (50a) (Column 8, Line 8) having an outer surface; and a second glass pane (50c) (Column 8, Line 8) having an outer surface, wherein the second glass pane (50c) is spaced from the first glass pane (50a), the first glass pane (50a) and the second glass pane (50c) defining a pocket (Z) therebetween, wherein a central plane (Y) extends through the pocket (Z) and is spaced equal distances from the first glass pane (50a) and the second glass pane (50c); a frame (30) [rail (Column 7, Line 64)] supporting the insulating glazing unit (50), the frame (30) including a first side, a second side and a middle portion intermediate the first side and the second side, the first glass panel (50a) of the insulating glass unit (50) is an outermost pane of the first side of the frame (30) and the second glass pane of the insulating glass unit (50) is an outermost pane on the second side of the frame (30); and an insulating material (33) [structural foam (Column 7, Line 67)] is disposed in the middle portion of the frame (30), the insulating material (33) defining a continuous frame thermal break (X) (Column 8, Lines 14-18) circumscribing the insulated glass unit (50) [see Figure 1A] and extending through the frame (30), wherein the frame thermal break (X) has width, and wherein the pocket (Z) has a width that is less than the width of the frame thermal break (X), wherein there is a distance between a central plane (W) of the frame thermal break (X) and the central plane (Y) of the pocket (Z). Hooper is silent about the exact width of the frame thermal break. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed width for the frame thermal break since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed frame thermal break width since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a width solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the width of Hooper would perform equally well. Hooper is also silent about the exact distance between the central plane of the frame thermal break and the central plane of the pocket. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed distance between the central plane of the frame thermal break and the central plane of the pocket since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed distance since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a width solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the distance of Hooper would perform equally well.
Regarding claim 23, Hooper teaches the insulating material has a thermal conductance in the range of 0.21-0.84 [0.5 (Column 1, Lines 46-49)].
Regarding claim 26, Hooper teaches in Figure 2, a distance between a central plane of the frame thermal break and the central plane of the pocket but is silent as to this exact distance. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed distance between the central plane of the frame thermal break and the central plane of the pocket since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed distance since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a width solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the distance of Hooper would perform equally well.
Claims 2 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 10,814,369 to Hooper et al in view of US Patent Application Publication # 2011/0011006 to Wuest et al.
Regarding claim 2, Hooper teaches in Figure 2 [annotated above], an outer surface of the first glass pane (50a) is aligned with a first plane, wherein an outer surface of the second glass pane (50c) is aligned with a second plane, and wherein the insulating material (33) of the frame thermal break (X) is aligned with the pocket (Z) such that the central plane (Y), and the second plane extend through the frame thermal break (X). Hooper does not teach the first plane extends through the frame thermal break. However, Wuest teaches in Figure 4, an outer surface of a first glass pane is aligned with a first plane, wherein an outer surface of a second glass pane is aligned with a second plane, and wherein an insulating material (22) of a frame thermal break is aligned with a pocket such that a central plane, the first plane, and the second plane extend through the frame thermal break. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hooper with Wuest and have a reasonable expectation of success because in Wuest such an alignment reduces the overall size of the frame, making it less bulky and more aesthetically pleasing.
Regarding claim 27, Hooper teaches in Figure 2 [annotated above], an outer surface of the first glass pane (50a) is aligned with a first plane, wherein an outer surface of the second glass pane (50c) is aligned with a second plane, and wherein the insulating material (33) of the frame thermal break (X) is aligned with the pocket (Z) such that the central plane (Y), and the second plane extend through the frame thermal break (X). Hooper does not teach the first plane extends through the frame thermal break. However, Wuest teaches in Figure 4, an outer surface of a first glass pane is aligned with a first plane, wherein an outer surface of a second glass pane is aligned with a second plane, and wherein an insulating material (22) of a frame thermal break is aligned with a pocket such that a central plane, the first plane, and the second plane extend through the frame thermal break. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hooper with Wuest and have a reasonable expectation of success because in Wuest such an alignment reduces the overall size of the frame, making it less bulky and more aesthetically pleasing.
Regarding claim 28, Hooper teaches in Figure 2 [annotated above], a building component (10) [window assembly (Column 7, Lines 45-46)] comprising: an insulated glass unit (50) [glazing (Column 7, Line 58)] including: a first glass unit (50a) (Column 8, Line 8) having an outer surface; and a second glass pane (50c) (Column 8, Line 8) having an outer surface, wherein the second glass pane (50c) is spaced from the first glass pane (50a), the first glass pane (50a) and the second glass pane (50c) defining a pocket (Z) therebetween, wherein a central plane (Y) extends through the pocket (Z) and is spaced equal distances from the first glass pane (50a) and the second glass pane (50c); a frame (30) [rail (Column 7, Line 64)] supporting the insulating glazing unit (50), the frame (30) including a first side, a second side and a middle portion intermediate the first side and the second side, the first glass panel (50a) of the insulating glass unit (50) is an outermost pane of the first side of the frame (30) and the second glass pane of the insulating glass unit (50) is an outermost pane on the second side of the frame (30); and an insulating material (33) [structural foam (Column 7, Line 67)] is disposed in the middle portion of the frame (30), the insulating material (33) defining a continuous frame thermal break (X) (Column 8, Lines 14-18) circumscribing the insulated glass unit (50) [see Figure 1A] and extending through the frame (30), wherein the insulated glass unit (50) is connected to the frame (30) such that the position of the insulation glass unit (50) if fixed (Column 1, Line 19) relative to the frame (30), wherein the frame thermal break (X) has width, and wherein the pocket (Z) has a width that is less than the width of the frame thermal break (X), an outer surface of the first glass pane (50a) is aligned with a first plane, wherein an outer surface of the second glass pane (50c) is aligned with a second plane, and wherein the insulating material (33) of the frame thermal break (X) is aligned with the pocket (Z) such that the central plane (Y), and the second plane extend through the frame thermal break (X); wherein there is a distance between a central plane (W) of the frame thermal break (X) and the central plane (Y) of the pocket (Z). Hooper is silent about the exact width of the frame thermal break. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed width for the frame thermal break since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed frame thermal break width since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a width solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the width of Hooper would perform equally well. Hooper is also silent about the exact distance between the central plane of the frame thermal break and the central plane of the pocket. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed distance between the central plane of the frame thermal break and the central plane of the pocket since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed distance since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a width solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the distance of Hooper would perform equally well. Hooper also does not teach the first plane extends through the frame thermal break. However, Wuest teaches in Figure 4, an outer surface of a first glass pane is aligned with a first plane, wherein an outer surface of a second glass pane is aligned with a second plane, and wherein an insulating material (22) of a frame thermal break is aligned with a pocket such that a central plane, the first plane, and the second plane extend through the frame thermal break. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hooper with Wuest and have a reasonable expectation of success because in Wuest such an alignment reduces the overall size of the frame, making it less bulky and more aesthetically pleasing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm EST.
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.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights