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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 19 March 2026, with respect to the objection to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 31 December 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that amending claim 1 to positively require that “the soft sliding surface is chamfered or beveled such that it falls away laterally outwardly in the direction of the side outer surfaces, and wherein the casing element has a ribbed structure on the underside, and wherein the ribbed structure has successive ribs which are wedge-shaped in cross-section” distinguishes the instant invention over the clamping device and rib structure taught by Mayer (US-9097044-B2) in view of Bushey (US-7644964-B2). Although this amendment overcomes the previous objection, the Examiner maintains that the prior art teaches the claimed structure. Bushey’s ribbed structure has successive ribs which are wedge-shaped in cross-section, each rib having a sloping oblique surface which starts from a base of the underside and ends at a contact edge or contact bead which protrudes from the base. Therefore, claims 1-4 and 7-15 remain rejected.
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) 1-4 and 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US-9097044-B2) in view of Bushey (US-7644964-B2). All citations refer to the Mayer reference unless otherwise noted.
With regards to claim 1, Mayer discloses a clamping device (Figure 1) for windows and/or doors (Col. 1 Line 5), comprising a wedge-like base body (as shown Figure 5) having an underside (66 Figure 5), a top side (38 Figure 5), a core element (52, 54 Figure 1) and a casing element (58 Figure 2), wherein the heights of side outer surfaces (30, 32 Figure 3) of the base body increase starting from a flat region (12 Figure 3) in the direction of a high region (3 Figure 5) such that the base body forms a wedge (as shown Figure 5), and wherein the core element forms a hard sliding track (portion of 52, 54 forming top side surface 38, Figure 1) on the top side and the casing element forms a soft sliding surface (portion of 58 forming top side surface 38, Figure 1) on the top side (Col. 3 Lines 28-45),
wherein the soft sliding surface is chamfered or beveled such that it falls away laterally outwardly in the direction of the side outer surfaces (Figure 3 shows the soft sliding surface falling away to the left/right towards side surfaces 30 and 32, and downwards from top side 38).
Mayer does not disclose that the casing element has a ribbed structure on the underside.
However, Bushey discloses a clamping device (110 Figure 9) for windows and/or doors (60 Para. 0041) comprising a ribbed structure (114 Figure 9) on the underside (112 Figure 9), and wherein the ribbed structure (114 Figure 9) has successive ribs (as shown Figure 9) which are wedge-shaped in cross-section (as shown Figure 9), each rib having a sloping oblique surface which starts from a base (valley of rib 114, Figure 9) of the underside (66 Figure 5) and ends at a contact edge or contact bead (peak of rib 114, Figure 9) which protrudes from the base (as shown Figure 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Bushey’s ribbed structure to the underside of Mayer’s casing element, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to add such a ribbed structure to increase the frictional resistance against sliding in the undesired direction (Para. 0042).
With regards to claim 2, Mayer in view of Bushey teaches the clamping device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the soft sliding surface (portion of 58 forming top side surface 38, Figure 1) aligns flush (as shown Figure 3) with the hard sliding track (portion of 52, 54 forming top side surface 38, Figure 1) and/or (interpreted as requiring only one of associated limitations) forms a ramp falling laterally away outwardly at the side outer surfaces.
With regards to claim 3, Mayer in view of Bushey teaches the clamping device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the soft sliding surface (portion of 58 forming top side surface 38, Figure 1) peripherally surrounds the hard sliding track (portion of 52, 54 forming top side surface 38, Figure 1) and forms a ramp falling away laterally outwardly on the periphery with slope angles which differ along the periphery (Figure 3 shows the soft sliding surface falling away to the left/right towards side surfaces 30 and 32, and downwards from top side 38 with slope angles which differ along the periphery).
With regards to claim 4, Mayer in view of Bushey teaches the clamping device as claimed in claim 1.
Mayer appears to show (Figure 3) that the soft sliding surface (portion of 58 forming top side surface 38, Figure 1) falls away or slopes at least at one slope angle selected from the range of 1° to 15°, wherein the slope angle is spanned by the soft sliding surface and a plane containing the hard sliding track (portion of 52, 54 forming top side surface 38, Figure 1).
Although Mayer is silent on the precise slope angle, In re Aller (220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235) held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the clamping device such that the soft sliding surface falls away or slopes at least at one slope angle selected from the range of 1° to 15°, wherein the slope angle is spanned by the soft sliding surface and a plane containing the hard sliding track, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to select such a slope angle to optimize clamping device for use with windows and/or doors.
With regards to claim 7, Mayer in view of Bushey teaches the clamping device as claimed in claim 6, wherein the oblique surface slopes (of rib 114, Figure 9 – Bushey) at an oblique surface angle relative to the base (66 Figure 5) or a support surface for the base body.
Bushey is silent on whether the oblique surface angle is selected from the range of 0.5° to 5°.
However, In re Aller (220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235) held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the ribs such that the oblique surface angle is selected from the range of 0.5° to 5°, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to select such an oblique surface angle to optimize clamping device for use with windows and/or doors.
With regards to claim 8, Mayer in view of Bushey teaches the clamping device as claimed in claim 6.
Bushey is silent on whether the oblique surface (of rib 114, Figure 9 – Bushey) has a length which is selected from the range of 2 to 4 mm and/or (interpreted as requiring only one of associated limitations) that the contact edge or contact bead protrudes from the base with a height in the range of 0.05-0.5 mm.
However, In re Aller (220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235) held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the ribs such that the oblique surface has a length which is selected from the range of 2 to 4 mm, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to select such an oblique surface angle to optimize clamping device for use with windows and/or doors.
With regards to claim 9, Mayer in view of Bushey teaches the clamping device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the core element (52, 54 Figure 1) has laterally outwardly oriented outer surfaces which extend between the underside (66 Figure 5) and the top side (38 Figure 5), wherein the casing element (58 Figure 2) follows and covers the outer surfaces of the core element (as shown Figure 3).
With regards to claim 10, Mayer in view of Bushey teaches the clamping device as claimed in claim 1, wherein at the flat region (12 Figure 3), the core element (52, 54 Figure 1) has a tongue-like free end (top end, Figure 1) having at least one tooth (56 Figure 1) or pin which protrudes from its surface (upwardly, Figure 1) and is received and/or encased and/or surrounded by the casing element (58 Figure 2).
With regards to claim 11, Mayer in view of Bushey teaches the clamping device as claimed in claim 10, wherein the casing element (58 Figure 2) protrudes beyond the outer edge of the free end (top end, Figure 1) of the core element (52, 54 Figure 1) and thereby forms a flexibly deformable free end (10 Figure 1) of the casing element.
Mayer is silent on whether the casing element protrudes 1 to 2 cm beyond the outer edge of the free end of the core element.
However, In re Aller (220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235) held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the clamping device such that the casing element protrudes 1 to 2 cm beyond the outer edge of the free end of the core element, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to select such an oblique surface angle to optimize clamping device for use with windows and/or doors.
With regards to claim 12, Mayer in view of Bushey teaches the clamping device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the casing element (58 Figure 2) forms three free ends of the base body (10, 3, 4 Figure 1), and/or (interpreted as requiring only one of associated limitations) that the core element forms a figure with three free ends which is enclosed in the casing element with its free ends.
With regards to claim 13, Mayer in view of Bushey teaches the clamping device as claimed in claim 12, wherein two laterally outwardly curved branches (1, 2 Figure 1) are provided which each taper in width to a tip in the direction of the first and second free end (3, 4 Figure 1) and also increase in height (as shown Figure 5), wherein a tongue is provided which increases in height starting from the flat region (12 Figure 5) at the third free end (10 Figure 1) in the direction of the branches (as shown Figure 5), and wherein the two branches and the tongue transform continuously into one another in a central region (as shown Figure 5).
With regards to claim 14, Mayer in view of Bushey teaches the clamping device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the core element (52, 54 Figure 1) follows the casing element (58 Figure 2) in its taper and elevation (as shown Figures 3 and 5).
With regards to claim 15, Mayer in view of Bushey teaches the clamping device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the casing element (58 Figure 2) is softer (Col. 3 Lines 28-45) than the core element (52, 54 Figure 1) and/or (interpreted as requiring only one of associated limitations) that the casing element is made from an elastomer with a Shore A hardness in the range of 50 to 80.
Mayer is silent on whether the core element is made from polypropylene.
However, In re Leshin (277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416) held that it is 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Mayer’s core element from polypropylene, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to use polypropylene for the core element to achieve the desired elastomeric properties (Col. 3 Lines 28-45).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah Horowitz, whose telephone number is (571)272-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00AM - 7:00 PM.
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, Kristina Fulton, can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/NOAH HOROWITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3675