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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Denmark on 12/11/23 and in Europe on 10/04/24. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DKPA 2023 70609 and the EP24204765.2 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/6/24 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because Cite no. 2-4 of the NPL documents should include a corresponding date. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1: It appears the limitation “an edge flange height” found in line 18 of the claim should be directed to “the edge flange height” as the limitation “an edge flange height” was previously recited.
With regard to claims 10: Lines 3, 7, 13, and 15 of the claims, it appears the capitalized words “Providing”, “Providing” “Arranging” and “Inserting”, listed here in the order they appear, should be lower case.
With regard to claims 11: Lines 3, 5 and 7 of the claim, it appears the capitalized words “Arranging”, “Arranging” and “Bringing”, listed here in the order they appear, should be lower case.
With regard to claims 13: Lines 3, 5 and 7 of the claim, it appears the capitalized words “Arranging”, “Arranging” and “Inserting”, listed here in the order they appear, should be lower case.
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 7 and 10-13 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.
With regard to claim 7: Line 3 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “ways” should be --away--. Further, it’s unclear as to how an engagement section extends away from the pocket opening along the pocket plane in a direction away from the pocket end. As shown in figures 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the instant application, an engagement section (105) extends toward the pocket end (1062).
With regard to claim 10: Line 18 of the claim, the limitation "the leading edge" lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --a leading edge--. Lines 20-21 of the claim, the limitation “the mounted state” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --a mounted state--.
With regard to claim 11: Line 5 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a roof penetrating structure” is referencing the previously recited roof window or roof structure found in claim 10. For the purpose of examination, they are considered to be the same elements.
With regard to claim 12: Line 2 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a roof penetrating structure” is referencing the previously recited roof window or roof structure found in claim 10. For the purpose of examination, they are considered to be the same elements.
With regard to claim 13: Line 7 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a roof penetrating structure” is referencing the previously recited roof window or roof structure found in claim 10. Line 8 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitations “a corresponding roof window” and “a corresponding roof structure” are referencing one of the previously recited roof windows or roof structures. For the purpose of examination, they are considered to be the same elements.
Claims 7 and 10-13 are examined as best understood.
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) 1-6, 8-10 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mucha et al. (EP 2525014 A2).
With regard to claim 1: Mucha et al. discloses a cover assembly (Figs. 1-5) for at least one roof penetrating structure (at R), the cover assembly comprising:
a first cover member (X) comprising a pocket section (Z) forming a pocket (D) extending along a pocket plane (F1) and having a pocket opening (B) and a pocket end (A) opposite the pocket opening (B), where a pocket depth (H2) is measured along the pocket plane (F1) from the pocket opening (B) to the pocket end (A) (fig. 4), and where a pocket height (H1) is measured perpendicular to the pocket plane (F1) (Fig. 4),
and a second cover member (Y) comprising an edge flange (C) extending in an edge flange plane (F2) and having a bent edge (G) bent along a bend line (at W), said bend line (at W) forming a free edge (G) of the edge flange (C), where an edge flange height (Q) is measured perpendicular to the edge flange plane (F2), and where an edge flange width (N) is measured in parallel to the edge flange plane (F2), perpendicular to and away from the bend line (at W) (Fig. 4),
where each of the first cover member (X) and the second cover member (Y) has an interior side (K and J) configured for facing a roof window or a roof structure (R) in a mounted state of the cover assembly and an exterior side (L and I) configured for facing towards an exterior in the mounted state (Para. 0019; Figs. 1 and 4-5),
where the bent edge (G) of the edge flange (C) comprises a compacted section (E) closest to the bend line (at W) and a lip section (at G) extending from the compacted section (E) at an angle to the edge flange plane (F2), that the pocket height (H1) is larger than the edge flange height at the compacted section (E) and smaller than the maximum edge flange height at the lip section (G) at the pocket end (A) (Para. 0013, 0021, 0001; Fig. 4, Fig. 5).
Mucha et al. does not disclose said edge flange width being equal to or larger than the pocket depth at the pocket end.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cover assembly of Mucha et al. to have an edge flange width equal to or larger than the pocket depth, as the increased length of the flange would have allowed for additional adjustability. No new or unpredictable results would have come from modifying Mucha et al. to have the edge flange width greater than or equal to the pocket depth.
PNG
media_image1.png
548
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig 1: Mucha et al. (EP 2525014A2)
PNG
media_image2.png
498
410
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig 4: Mucha et al. (EP 2525014A2)
PNG
media_image3.png
675
704
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5: Mucha et al. (EP 2525014A2)
With regard to claim 2: Mucha et al. further discloses the maximum edge flange height at the lip section (at G) is found at an edge side of the lip section (at G) remote from the compacted section (E) (Para. 0022; Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 3: Mucha et al. does not teach that the pocket height is at least twice the edge flange height at the compacted section, and/or where a radius of curvature of the pocket end is at least twice a radius of curvature of the free edge.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cover assembly of Mucha et al. to have the pocket height to be at least twice the edge flange height in order to allow for adjustability within the pocket and/or allow for ease of insertion. No new or unpredictable results would have come from modifying Mucha et al. to have the pocket height at least twice the edge flange height.
With regard to claim 4: Mucha et al. further discloses that the lip section (at G) projects at the interior side (J) of the second cover member (Y) (Para. 0013, 0021; Fig. 5). The examiner notes that the interior side (J) of the second cover member (Y) is considered to include the horizontal surface which faces upward and contains the interior angles of both the bent edge (G) and the 90-degree bend on the edge flange (C).
With regard to claim 5: Mucha et al. further discloses that the compacted section (E) is a compressed section of the bent edge (G) (Para. 0013; Fig 4).
With regard to claim 6: Mucha et al. further discloses that at least the lip section (at G) is made from an elastic material (Para. 0022).
With regard to claim 8: Mucha et al. further discloses a cover assembly where at least the edge flange (C) is made from a sheet material (Para. 0022; fig. 4).
With regard to claim 9: Mucha et al. further discloses that at least a portion of at least one of the first cover member (X) and the second cover member (Y) is a folded sheet material (Para. 0020, 0022; Figs. 1-5).
With regard to claim 10: Mucha et al. discloses a method for mounting cover members of a cover assembly at one or more roof penetrating structures (fig. 1-5), comprising:
providing a first cover member (X) comprising a pocket section (Z) forming a pocket (D) having a pocket opening (B) and a pocket end (A) opposite the pocket opening (B), where a pocket depth (H2) is measured from the pocket opening (B) to the pocket end (A), and where a pocket height (H1) is measured perpendicular to the pocket depth (H2) (Fig. 4),
providing a second cover member (Y) comprising an edge flange (C) extending in an edge flange plane (F2) and having a bent edge (G) bent along a bend line (at W), said bend line (at W) forming a free edge (G) of the edge flange (C), where an edge flange height (Q) is measured perpendicular to the edge flange plane (F2), and where an edge flange width (N) is measured in parallel to the edge flange plane (F2), perpendicular to and away from the bend line (at W) (Para. 0013, 0021; Fig. 4),
arranging each of the first cover member (X) and the second cover member (Y) with an interior side (J and K) facing a roof window or a roof structure (R) and an exterior side facing towards an exterior (L and I) (Fig. 5),
and inserting the edge flange (C) of the second cover member (Y) in the pocket (D) of the first cover member (X) by relative displacement of first cover member (X) and the second cover member (Y) along an insertion direction extending in parallel with the edge flange plane (F2), where a compacted section (E) of a bent edge (G) of the edge flange (C) constitutes the leading edge of the edge flange (C) during insertion into the pocket (D), and where a lip section (at G) extending from the compacted section (E) at an angle to the edge flange plane (F2) presses against an inner surface of the pocket (D) during the insertion and in the mounted state of the cover assembly (Para. 0013, 0021; Fig 4).
Mucha et al. does not disclose said edge flange width being equal to or larger than the pocket depth at the pocket end.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Mucha et al. to have an edge flange width equal to or larger than the pocket depth, as the increased length of the flange would have allowed for additional adjustability. No new or unpredictable results would have come from modifying Mucha et al. to have the edge flange width greater than or equal to the pocket depth.
With regard to claim 14: Mucha et al. does not teach a cover assembly where the pocket height is at least twice the edge flange height at the compacted section, and/or where a radius of curvature of the pocket end is at least twice a radius of curvature of the free edge.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Mucha et al. to have the pocket height to be at least twice the edge flange height in order to allow for adjustability within the pocket and/or allow for ease of insertion. No new or unpredictable results would have come from modifying Mucha et al. to have the pocket height at least twice the edge flange height.
With regard to claim 15: Mucha et al. further discloses the cover assembly, wherein the lip section (at G) projects at the interior side (J) of the second cover member (Y) (Para. 0013, 0021; Fig 5). The examiner notes that the interior side (J) of the second cover member (Y) is considered to be the horizontal surface which faces upward and contains the interior angles of both the bent edge (G) and the 90-degree bend on the edge flange (C).
With regard to claim 16: Mucha et al. further discloses the cover assembly, wherein the lip section (at G) projects at the interior side (J) of the second cover member (Y) (Para. 0013, 0021; Fig 5). The examiner notes that the interior side (J) of the second cover member (Y) is considered to be the horizontal surface which faces upward and contains the interior angles of both the bent edge (G) and the 90-degree bend on the edge flange (C).
With regard to claim 17: Mucha et al. further discloses the compacted section (E) is a compressed section of the bent edge (G) (Para. 0013, 0021; Fig 4). The bending of the bent edge is considered to be a compressing of the edge flange forming the compressed section.
With regard to claim 18: Mucha et al. further discloses that the compacted section (E) is a compressed section of the bent edge (G) (Para. 0013, 0021; Fig 4). The bending of the bent edge is considered to be a compressing of the edge flange forming the compressed section.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mucha et al. (EP 2 525 014 A2) in view of Bird et al. (DE 202018106248).
With regard to claim 7: Mucha et al. does not disclose a cover assembly where the first cover member further comprises an engagement section extending towards the pocket opening along the pocket plane in a direction towards pocket end.
However, Bird et al. does disclose a first cover member (X) where the engagement section (S) extends towards from the pocket opening (B) along the pocket plane (F1) in a direction towards the pocket end (A) (Para. 0035; Fig. 5).
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 cover assembly disclosed in Mucha et al. to have the first cover member comprise an engagement section extending towards the pocket opening along the pocket plane in a direction towards the pocket end such as taught by Bird et al. in order to provide for additional securement to mitigate unwanted disengagement. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the cover assembly of Mucha et al. to have the first cover member further comprise an engagement section extending towards the pocket opening along the pocket plane in a direction towards pocket end such as taught by Bird et al.
PNG
media_image4.png
918
1001
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5: Bird et al. (DE 202018106248)
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mucha (EP 2525014A2), in view of Edvardsen (WO 0242578 A1).
With regard to claim 11: Mucha et al. does not disclose arranging the cover assembly in a narrow configuration by inserting the edge flange fully into the pocket, arranging the cover assembly at a roof penetrating structure, and bringing the cover assembly into an expanded configuration by retracting the edge flange partially from the pocket.
However, Edvardsen et al. does disclose the process of arranging the cover assembly in a narrow configuration (P) by inserting the edge flange (C) fully into the pocket (D), arranging the cover assembly at a roof penetrating structure (at R) (pg. 4, lines 28-35), and bringing the cover assembly into an expanded configuration (M) by retracting the edge flange (C) partially from the pocket (D) (pg. 4, lines 28-35, pg. 6, lines 34-35; pg. 7, lines 1-29) (Fig. 3, 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 method of Mucha et al. to include the steps of fully inserting the edge flange into the pocket, mounting near a roof structure, then partially retracting the edge flange from the pocket such as taught by Edvardsen et al. in order to allow for adjustability of the cover members relative to the roof window or roof structure for ease installation of the cover members. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from combining the method in Mucha et al. to include steps allowing for adjustability in Edvardsen et al.
PNG
media_image5.png
296
524
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig 3. Edvardsen et al. (WO 0242578 A1).
PNG
media_image6.png
278
461
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig 4. Edvardsen et al. (WO 0242578 A1).
With regard to claim 12: Mucha et al., further discloses the method where the bent edge (G) on the second cover member (Y) engages with a bent edge (V) on the first cover member (X). The examiner notes that the section of the first cover member (X) extending upwards from horizontal in the material is considered to be the bent edge (V) of the first cover member. (Fig. 5b)
PNG
media_image7.png
675
704
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig 5b: Mucha et al. (EP 2525014A2)
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mucha et al. (EP 2 525 014 A2), in view of Henriksen et al. (WO 2004/007864 A1).
With regard to claim 19: Mucha et al. further discloses an elastic material (Para. 0022).
Mucha et al. does not disclose the elastic material being made of aluminum.
However, Henriksen et al. discloses the use of aluminum as an elastic material for the use in cover members (pg. 1, Line 20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the elastic material disclosed in Mucha et al. with the aluminum sheet material disclosed in Henriksen et al. to provide a strong and durable material that can be readily manipulated into a desired shape. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from substituting the cover material of Mucha et al. for another known cover material such as taught by Henrikson.
With regard to claim 20: Mucha et al. does not disclose the sheet material being made of sheet metal.
However, Henriksen et al. discloses the use of sheet metal as a sheet material in the making of a cover assembly (pg. 1, Line 20).
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 sheet material disclosed in Mucha et al. with the sheet metal disclosed in Henriksen et al. to provide a strong and durable material that can be readily manipulated into a desired shape. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from substituting the sheet material of Mucha et al. for sheet metal such as taught by Henrikson et al.
Allowable Claims
Claim(s) 13 is rejected 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, and if the claims were rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 25 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: It should be noted that the prior art disclosed in Figure 1 of the drawings is not applicable as the prior art belongs to the same applicant (see “US 20260098408 A1”) being within 1 year of the effective filing date of the instant application.
With regard to claim 13: The combination of all the steps of the claimed method for mounting cover members of a cover assembly at one or more roof penetrating structure including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, in particular inserting the edge flange further into the pocket until both cover members are in contact with the corresponding roof window or the corresponding roof structure is not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record. Examiner notes that allowability of the claims are subject to reconsideration should the scope of the claims change.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited are directed to cover members for roofing environments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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 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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights