DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 28-31, 33-41, and 44-48 in the reply filed on 07/05/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that in EP3260621A1, there was no reason to make holding device (60) integral with the web plate (28) and therefore the restriction was improper because there was not lack of unity of invention. This is not found persuasive. The requirement is for the connection portion to be integral with the central portion. The examiner maintains that the connection portion (46,48) is integral with the central portion or that making it integral would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, there is a lack of unity of invention and thus, there is no single inventive concept.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 42 and 43 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 5, 2026.
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 39-41 and 45 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.
In re Claims 39-41, the claim states “or, when present, the second flange”. Is the second flange “present” for purposes of the claimed limitations or not? This lack of clarity renders the scope of the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 45, the claim states that “preferably wherein the second connection portion of the inner glazing element is attached to the second flanges of the first and second channel section glazing elements”. The word "preferably" introduces uncertainty as to whether the limitation it describes is being positively claimed or not. This renders the scope of the claim indefinite. An appropriate correction is required.
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) 28-31, 33-41, 44-45, and 48 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamberts (EP 3,260,621).
In re Claim 28, Lamberts teaches A glazing comprising a first channel-section glazing element (18) and a second channel-section glazing element (18), the first and second channel-section glazing elements each comprising a web(34) and a first flange(36), the first flange running along a first lateral edge of the respective web, the first and second channel-section glazing elements being arranged such that the first flange of the first channel-section glazing element faces (in the direction of) the second channel- section glazing element and the first flange of the second channel-section glazing element faces (in the direction of ) the first channel-section glazing element, wherein an inner glazing element(24) made of plastic is located between the first and second channel-section glazing elements, the inner glazing element comprising a central portion (42,44), a first edge portion (side with projection 46)running along a first side of the central portion and a second edge portion (side with recess 48) running along a second side of the central portion, the first side of the central portion being opposite the second side of the central portion, wherein the first edge portion of the inner glazing element is adjacent/close to the first flange of the first channel-section glazing element, characterized in that the first edge portion of the inner glazing element comprises a first connection portion (projection 46 in mechanical communication (via holding device 60 and buffer 64)with the first flange of the first channel-section glazing element, the first connection portion being integrally formed with the central portion, and wherein the central portion of the inner glazing element has a multi-wall construction comprising a first wall (44) facing (in the direction of) the web of the first channel-section glazing element and a second wall (44) facing (in the direction of) the web of the second channel-section glazing element, there being a plurality of air-spaces between the first and second walls of the central portion of the inner glazing element. (Figures 1-4, annotated figures)
However, should the applicant dispute that the connection portions is integrally formed with the central portion, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have them be formed integrally, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993). An integrally formed connection portion would strengthen the structural integrity of the central portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
591
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 29, Lamberts teaches that the glazing is arranged such that there is a first space between the central portion (42,44) of the inner glazing element and the web (34) of the first channel-section glazing element (18) and a second space between the central portion (42,44) of the inner glazing element and the web (34) of the second channel-section glazing element (18). (Figures 1-4, annotated figures)
In re Claim 30, Lamberts teaches that the first connection portion (projection 46) of the inner glazing element is attached to the first flange (36) of first channel-section glazing element by holding device 60 and buffer 64. (Figures 1-4, annotated figures)
In re Claim 31, Lamberts teaches that the first flange (36) of first channel-section glazing element has a first gasket (buffer material 64) on at least a portion thereof, and the first connection portion (projection 46) of the inner glazing element is attached to the first flange of first channel-section glazing element using the first gasket. (Figures 1-4, annotated figures)
In re Claim 33, Lamberts teaches the first connection portion (potion with projection 46) comprises a first element biased against the first flange of the first channel-section element and/or wherein the first connection portion is adhesively (by buffer material 64 which can include silicone and sealing materials) attached to the first flange (36) of the first channel-section glazing element (18). (Figures 1-4, annotated figures)
In re Claim 34, Lamberts teaches the web (34) of the first channel-section glazing element (18) has a second flange (38) running along a second lateral edge thereof, the second lateral edge of the web (34) of the first channel-section glazing element being opposite the first lateral edge of the web of the first channel-section glazing element and/or wherein the web (34) of the second channel-section glazing element (18) has a second flange (38) running along a second lateral edge thereof, the second lateral edge of the web (38)of the second channel- section glazing element (18) being opposite the first lateral edge of the web of the second channel-section glazing element (18). (Figures 1-4, annotated figures)
In re Claim 35, Lamberts teaches the first flange (36,38) of the first and second channel-section glazing elements(18) each has a respective first end (a free end) opposite the respective web (34) thereof, the glazing being arranged such that the first end (the free end) of the first flange of the first channel-section glazing element faces the first end (the free end) of the first flange of the second channel-section glazing element. (Figures 3-4)
In re Claim 36, Lamberts teaches that the web (34) of the first channel-section (18) glazing element has a second flange (36,38) running along a second lateral edge thereof, the second lateral edge of the web of the first channel-section glazing element being opposite the first lateral edge of the web of the first channel-section glazing element; and wherein the web (34) of the second channel-section glazing element (18) has a second flange (36,38) running along a second lateral edge thereof, the second lateral edge of the web of the second channel- section glazing element being opposite the first lateral edge of the web of the second channel-section glazing element; and wherein an end of the first flange (36,38) of the first channel-section glazing element (18) faces an end of the first flange(36,38) of the second channel-section glazing element (18) and an end of the second flange (36,38) of the first channel-section glazing element(18) faces an end of the second flange (18) of the second channel-section glazing element (18). (Figures 1-4, annotated figures)
In re Claim 37, 38 and 39, Lambert teaches the second edge portion of the inner glazing element comprises a second connection portion (recess 48).The second connection portion appears to be integrally formed with the central portion (42,44) (Figures 1-4, annotated figures) Again as was noted above, should the applicant dispute this , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have them be formed integrally, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993). An integrally formed connection portion would strengthen the structural integrity of the central portion.
This second connection portion is in mechanical communication (via holding device 60 and buffer 64) with the first flange of the second-channel section glazing element, or when present, the second flange of the second channel-section glazing element. (Figures 1-4, annotated figures)
In re Claim 40, Lamberts teaches first flange of second channel-section glazing element(18) has a first gasket (64) on at least a portion thereof, and the second connection portion of the inner glazing element (18) is attached to the first flange (36,38) of second channel-section glazing element (18) using the first gasket (64), or when present, the second flange (36,38) of second channel-section glazing element (18) has a first gasket (64)on at least a portion thereof, and the second connection portion of the inner glazing element is attached to the second flange (36,38) of second channel-section glazing element using the first gasket (64). (Figures 1-4, annotated figures)
In re Claim 41, Lamberts teaches the second connection portion comprises a first element biased against the first flange of the second channel channel-section element, or when present, the second flange of the second channel-section glazing element; or wherein the second connection portion (recess 48) is adhesively attached/connected (by buffer material 64 which can include silicone and sealing materials) to the first flange (36,38) of the second channel-section glazing element (18), or when present, the second flange of the second channel- section glazing element. (Figures 1-4, annotated figures)
In re Claim 44, Lamberts teaches the first connection portion (46) of the inner glazing element is in mechanical communication with the first flanges(36,38) of the first and second channel section glazing elements. (Figures 1-4, annotated figures)
In re Claim 45, Lamberts teaches a second edge portion with a second connection portion (recess - 48) and wherein the second connection portion (48) of the inner glazing element is in mechanical communication(via holding device 60 and buffer 64) with the second flanges (36,38) of the first and second channel-section glazing elements, preferably wherein the second connection portion of the inner glazing element is attached to the second flanges of the first and second channel section glazing elements. (Figures 1-4, annotated figures)
In re Claim 48, Figure 2 of Lamberts shows a staggered configuration of channel section glazing elements where the first flange (36) of a channel section glazing element (18 – first) is located in the space between the first and second flanges (36,38) of the another channel section glazing element )18 – second) (Figures 1-4, annotated figures)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 46-47 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest a glazing with the combination of channel section glazing elements configuration characteristics specified in the independent claim. There is no cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the prior art to obtain the applicant's invention.
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 ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights