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 1-15 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2-4 include shading. The use of shading may be used if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See MPEP § 608.02. In the instant case, legibility is reduced.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “A Profile” and it appears to be intended to recite, “A profile” in line 1.
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 1-15 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.
Re claim 1, claim 1 recites, “the first bar plane” in line 5, “each bar plane” in line 5, “both frame profiles” in line 7-8, “the insulating support bar” in line 8 and “these support struts” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the first upper bar plane,” “the first upper bar plane and the second lower bar plane,” “the first and second metallic frame profiles,” “the one-piece insulating support bar” and “the two support struts” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 3, claim 3 recites that the runner is positively and non-positively snapped in. It is not readily apparent what would constitute positively and/or non-positively snapping, and it is further unclear how something can be both positively and non-positively snapped. For the purposes of this examination, this language will be interpreted as any snapping.
Re claim 6, claim 6 recites, “the insulating support bar” in line 2, “the first and second frame profile” in line 2-3, “the upper edges” in line 4 and “the two frame profiles” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the one-piece insulating support bar,” “the first and second metallic frame profiles,” “upper edges,” and “the first and second metallic frame profiles” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 7, claim 7 recites, “the respective bar plane” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “a respective bar plane of the first upper bar plane and the second lower bar plane” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 8, claim 8 recites, “the insulating support bar” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the one-piece insulating support bar” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 9, claim 9 recites, “the material thickness” in line 2, “the support struts” in line 3, and “the insulating support bar” in line 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “a material thickness,” “the two support struts,” and “the one-piece insulating support bar” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 10, claim 10 recites, “the frame profiles” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the first and second metallic frame profiles” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 11, claim 11 recites, “the sliding element” in line 3 and “the lower profile frame system” in line 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “a sliding element of the sliding elements” and “a lower profile frame system” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 12, claim 12 recites, “the sliding element” in line 2, “the underside” in line 4, “the sliding element” in line 5 and “the rollers” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “a sliding element of the sliding elements,” “an underside,” “a sliding element of the sliding elements” and “rollers” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 14, claim 14 recites, “the insulating support bar” in line 2-3, “the first and second frame profile” in line 3, “the lower edge” in line 4, “the sliding element” in line 4, “the upper edges” in line 4-5, and “the two frame profiles” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the one-piece insulating support bar,” “the first and second metallic frame profiles,” “a lower edge,” “a sliding element of the sliding elements,” “upper edges,” and “the first and second metallic frame profiles” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 15, claim 15 recites, “the first frame profile” in line 2-3, “the second frame profile” in line 3 and “the sliding element” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the first metallic frame profile,” “the second metallic frame profile” and “a sliding element of the sliding elements” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 15 recites, “its” in line 4. Numerous elements are previously introduced and thus, it is unclear as to which this language refers. It appears this language is intended to refer to “a (the) sliding element” and will be interpreted as such.
Claims 2, 4-5 and 13 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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) and Clauzet (EP1772582).
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 bar plane (see examiner comments), wherein each 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 profile (8, 9) and thus connect both frame profiles (8, 9), wherein, in 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 these support struts are arranged so as to diverge from one another at an acute angle α, starting from the snap-in geometry in the first upper bar plane and extending 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, Shulz discloses wherein the first upper bar plane (Fig. 3 top 3) is connected to the second lower bar plane (bottom 3) via two support struts (5) and these support struts (5) are arranged so as to diverge from one another (Fig. 3, from the midpoint downward) at an acute angle α (Fig. 3), starting from the snap-in geometry (as modified) in the first upper bar plane (top 3) and extending towards (Fig. 3) the second lower bar plane (bottom 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 wherein the first upper bar plane is connected to the second lower bar plane via two support struts and these support struts are arranged so as to diverge from one another at an acute angle α, starting from the snap-in geometry in the first upper bar plane and extending towards the second lower bar plane as disclosed by Shulz in order to increase strength and rigidity of the insulating support bar through use of inner webs.
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.
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 3 as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112 above, Lambertini as modified discloses the profile frame system according to claim 1, Clauzet discloses wherein the runner (52) is positively and non-positively snapped into (Fig. 3) the snap-in geometry (53, 54).
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 insulating support bar (8t, 12a, 12b) is arranged between the first and the second frame profile (8, 9), Clauzet discloses such that the runner (52) is located below (Fig. 3) the upper edges of the two 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) the respective bar plane (see examiner comments).
Re claim 8, Lambertini as modified discloses the profile frame system according to claim 1, wherein the 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 the material thickness of the first upper bar plane, the second lower bar plane and the support struts of the 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 the material thickness of the first upper bar plane, the second lower bar plane and the support struts of the 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 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 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 inserted sliding element (1), wherein the sliding element profile frame (8, 9) comprises several profile frame systems (Fig. 5) surrounding the sliding element (1) and wherein the 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 inserted sliding element according to claim 11, wherein the sliding element (1) has a filling element (1), but fails to disclose wherein a number of rollers are arranged distributed longitudinally on the underside of the frame such that, in use, the 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 the underside of the frame (at least partially below the frame portion surrounding 50) such that, in use, the 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 the underside of the frame such that, in use, the 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 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 inserted sliding element according to claim 11, wherein the insulating support bar (8t, 12a, 12b) is arranged between (Fig. 5) the first and the second frame profile (8, 9) such that the lower edge (of the elements at 28g) of the sliding element (Fig. 5) is located below the upper edges of the two 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 inserted sliding element according to claim 11, wherein the first frame profile (8) and the second 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights