DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-15 are pending.
Claim 3 is cancelled.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambertini (US 7,845,125) in view of Schulz (US 2002/0046539), Clauzet (EP1772582) and Rothmeier (EP 0764756).
Re claim 1, Lambertini discloses a profile frame system (Fig. 5) for sliding elements (1), comprising: a first frame profile (8) and a second metallic frame profile (209 an insulating support bar (8t; 12a; 12b) made of plastic (Col 4 lines 37-38) with a first upper bar plane (see examiner comments) and a second lower bar plane (see examiner comments) parallel to (Fig. 5) the first upper bar plane (see examiner comments), wherein each of the first upper bar plane (see examiner comments) and the second upper bar plane (see examiner comments) has, on both longitudinal sides (Fig. 5), roll-in heads (at 16, at 17) which are rolled into (Fig. 5) respective grooves (16, 17) in the first and second frame profiles (8, 9) and thus connect the first and second frame profiles (8, 9), wherein, in the cross-section (Fig. 1) of the insulating support bar (8t; 12a, 12b) above the first upper bar plane (see examiner comments),
but fails to disclose the first and second frame profiles as metallic, the support bar as one-piece, a snap-in geometry oriented on the longitudinal side is provided, in which a runner is snapped in, wherein the first upper bar plane is connected to the second lower bar plane via two support struts and the two support struts are arranged so as to diverge from one another at an acute angle α, starting from a region of the snap-in geometry in the first upper bar plane and extending towards the second lower bar plane, and form with a portion of the second lower bar plane an acute-angled triangular support structure having an apex in the region of the snap-in geometry, such that a load applied to the runner is transferred through the two support struts towards the second lower bar plane.
However, Shulz discloses the first (1) and second frame profiles (2) as metallic ([0022]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profile frame system of Lambertini with the first and second frame profiles as metallic as disclosed by Shulz in order to utilize an inexpensive, durable, easily formable and readily available material. In addition, 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. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
In addition, Shulz discloses the support bar (3) as one-piece (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profile frame system of Lambertini with the support bar as one-piece as disclosed by Shulz in order to reduce the number of parts required for assembly. In addition, it has been held that making integral by using a once piece construction is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968.
In addition, Clauzet discloses a snap-in geometry (53, 54) oriented on the longitudinal side is provided (Fig. 3), in which a runner (52) is snapped in (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profile frame system of Lambertini with a snap-in geometry oriented on the longitudinal side is provided, in which a runner is snapped in as disclosed by Clauzet in order to allow for maintenance and/or replacement of just a runner, instead of the entire support bar.
In addition, Rothmeier discloses wherein the first upper bar plane (Fig. 6, 3) is connected to (Fig. 6) the second lower bar plane (4) via two support struts (21, 22) and the two support struts (21, 22) are arranged so as to diverge from one another (Fig. 6) at an acute angle α (Fig. 6), starting from a region (proximate 3) of the snap-in geometry (as modified) in the first upper bar plane (3) and extending towards (Fig. 6) the second lower bar plane (4), and form with a portion of (Fig. 6) the second lower bar plane (4) an acute-angled triangular support structure (Fig. 6) having an apex (top of 21/22) in the region of the snap-in geometry (as modified), such that a load applied to the runner (as modified) is transferred through the two support struts (21, 22) towards the second lower bar plane (4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profile frame system of Lambertini wherein the first upper bar plane is connected to the second lower bar plane via two support struts and the two support struts are arranged so as to diverge from one another at an acute angle α, starting from a region of the snap-in geometry in the first upper bar plane and extending towards the second lower bar plane, and form with a portion of the second lower bar plane an acute-angled triangular support structure having an apex in the region of the snap-in geometry, such that a load applied to the runner is transferred through the two support struts towards the second lower bar plane as disclosed by Rothmeier in order to increase strength and rigidity of the insulating support bar through use of inner webs.
Re claim 2, Lambertini as modified discloses the profile frame system according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the angle α ranges between 20° and 65°.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profile frame system of Lambertini wherein the angle α ranges between 20° and 65° in order to ensure sufficient rigidity through optimized distribution of forces in the vertical direction. In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Re claim 4, Lambertini as modified discloses the profile frame system according to claim 1, wherein the runner (8t) is solid (Fig. 5) and comprises metal (Col 5 lines 15-17), carbon, or ceramic.
Re claim 5, Lambertini as modified discloses the profile frame system according to claim 4, wherein the runner (8t) is made of metal (Col 5 lines 15-17), but fails to disclose the runner with an oval or circular cross-section.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profile frame system of Lambertini with the runner with an oval or circular cross-section in order to utilize a simple, easy to manufacture and repeatable shape. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 6, Lambertini as modified discloses the profile frame system according to claim 1, wherein the one-piece insulating support bar (8t, 12a, 12b) is arranged between the first and second metallic frame profile (8, 9), Clauzet discloses such that the runner (52) is located below (Fig. 3) upper edges of the first and second metallic frame profile (upper edges of the frame profile surrounding 50).
Re claim 7, Lambertini as modified discloses the profile frame system according to claim 1, wherein the roll-in heads (at 16 and 17, see examiner comments) are arranged offset upwards or downwards relative to (Fig. 5) a respective bar plane (see examiner comments) of the first upper bar plane (see examiner comments) and the second lower bar plane (see examiner comments).
Re claim 8, Lambertini as modified discloses the profile frame system according to claim 1, wherein the one-piece insulating support bar (8t, 12a, 12b) comprises a material of polyamide (Col 4 lines 35-39), polyethylene terephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polyvinyl chloride or mixtures or combinations thereof.
Re claim 9, Lambertini as modified discloses the profile frame system according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a material thickness of the first upper bar plane, the second lower bar plane and the support struts of the one-piece insulating support bar ranges between 1.8 and 3.5 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profile frame system of Lambertini wherein a material thickness of the first upper bar plane, the second lower bar plane and the support struts of the one-piece insulating support bar ranges between 1.8 and 3.5 mm in order to ensure sufficient strength and rigidity while also aiding with heat insulation. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 10, Lambertini as modified discloses the profile frame system according to claim 1, wherein the first and second frame profiles (8, 9) are hollow chamber profiles (Fig. 5), but fails to disclose the frame profiles made of aluminum.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profile frame system of Lambertini with the first and second frame profiles made of aluminum in order to utilize an inexpensive, durable, easily formable and readily available material. In addition, 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. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 11, Lambertini as modified discloses a sliding element profile frame (Fig. 5, 8-9) with an inserted sliding element (1), wherein the inserted sliding element profile frame (8, 9) comprises several profile frame systems (Fig. 5) surrounding the sliding element (1) and wherein a lower profile frame system (Fig. 5) is a profile frame system (Fig. 5) according to claim 1 (see above).
Re claim 12, Lambertini as modified discloses the siding element profile frame with an inserted sliding element according to claim 11, wherein the inserted sliding element (1) has a filling element (1), but fails to disclose wherein a number of rollers are arranged distributed longitudinally on an underside of the frame such that, in use, the inserted sliding element is displaced by guiding the rollers on the runner.
However, Clauzet discloses wherein a number of rollers (51, disclosed as “at least one wheel) are arranged distributed longitudinally on an underside of the frame (at least partially below the frame portion surrounding 50) such that, in use, the inserted sliding element (Fig. 3) is displaced by guiding the rollers (51) on the runner (52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profile frame system of Lambertini wherein a number of rollers are arranged distributed longitudinally on an underside of the frame such that, in use, the inserted sliding element is displaced by guiding the rollers on the runner as disclosed by Clauzet in order to smoothly and uniformly guide the sliding element, as is the normal and logical manner of use of the rollers.
Re claim 13, Lambertini as modified discloses the siding element profile frame with an inserted sliding element according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the rollers with a U-shaped profile are attached directly to the frame or by a support profile to the frame.
However, Clauzet discloses wherein the rollers (51) with a U-shaped profile (Fig. 3) are attached directly to the frame or by a support profile (50) to the frame (the frame elements surrounding 50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the profile frame system of Lambertini wherein the rollers with a U-shaped profile are attached directly to the frame or by a support profile to the frame as disclosed by Clauzet in order to provide attachment to smoothly and uniformly guide the sliding element, as is the normal and logical manner of use of the rollers.
Re claim 14, Lambertini as modified discloses the siding element profile frame with an inserted sliding element according to claim 11, wherein the one-piece insulating support bar (8t, 12a, 12b) is arranged between (Fig. 5) the first and second metallic frame profile (8, 9) such that the lower edge (of the elements at 28g) of the sliding element (Fig. 5) is located below upper edges of the first and second metallic frame profiles (the profiles to the outside of 28g are both below the upper edges of 8 and 9).
Re claim 15, Lambertini as modified discloses the siding element profile frame with an inserted sliding element according to claim 11, wherein the first metallic frame profile (8) and the second metallic frame profile (9) are provided with one or more seals (28g) which abut at least in sections against the sliding element (1) or its frame (the frame elements surrounding 28g).
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
719
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Claims: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claim objections is persuasive and objection to the claims is hereby withdrawn.
Objections to the Drawings: Applicant’s argument with respect to the drawings is persuasive and objection to the drawings is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues the amended language of claim 1. This language is addressed in view of the newly relied upon Rothmeier above.
SEcodn, Applicant argues the claimed inventive concept of the present invention. No comment is necessary thereto.
Third, Applicant argues that modifying Lambertini would not result in the claimed invention. However, as discussed in the above, Lambertini as modified reads on the claimed invention.
Fourth, Applicant argues that Shulz does not remedy the deficiencies of Lambertini, in particular, with respect to the claimed struts. Shulz is no longer relied upon disclosing these features.
Fifth, Applicant argues that Clauzet does not remedy the deficiencies of Lambertini, in particular, with respect to the claimed struts. Clauzet is not relied upon disclosing these features.
Sixth, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As noted above, the features from each secondary reference are known, and motivation to combine the cited prior art was provided in the previous rejection and in the above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
