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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO_2023025436_A1 (see English equivalent: al-Sheyyab USPA_20240359384_A1) in view of Fink WO_2015139834_A1 (see machine English translation).
1. Regarding Claims 1, 3, al-Sheyyab discloses a window or door hollow-chamber profile (Title) comprising a fiber-reinforced into a polyamide (corresponds to claimed thermoplastic polymer) (paragraph 0015) matrix that forms a core profile and a coating (corresponds to claimed sheath profile) that covers it (Abstract) that is made from polyamide (corresponds to claimed plastic material) (paragraph 0019).
2. However, al-Sheyyab does not disclose the claimed fiber length.
3. Fink discloses a hollow-chamber section for windows and doors (Title) comprising a core area reinforced with short fibers (paragraph 0030) that can have a fiber length of a maximum of 2 mm (corresponds to claimed length of instant Claims 1, 3) (paragraph 0013), which provide the benefit of absorbing the gravitational forces that arise due to the weight of the windows (paragraph 0015).
4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the fiber length, of al-Sheyyab, by trying a fiber length of 2 mm, as disclosed by Fink. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to absorb the gravitational forces.
5. Regarding Claim 2, al-Sheyyab in view of Fink suggests having 60 wt% (al-Sheyyab: paragraph 0013).
3. Regarding Claims 4, 5, al-Sheyyab in view of Fink suggests its coating (corresponds to claimed sheath) is used in the making of the surface of an outer wall (al-Sheyyab: paragraph 0034, Fig. 4).
5. Regarding Claim 6, al-Sheyyab in view of Fink suggests the thickness of its coating (corresponds to claimed sheath) can be 0.3 mm (al-Sheyyab: paragraph 0022).
6. Regarding Claim 7, al-Sheyyab in view of Fink suggests using Polyamide 6 (al-Sheyyab: paragraph 0021).
7. Regarding Claim 8, al-Sheyyab in view of Fink suggests PA 12 (al-Sheyyab: paragraph 0019).
8. Regarding Claim 9, al-Sheyyab in view of Fink does not suggest the claimed modulus of elasticity. However, the Examiner respectfully submits that given that al-Sheyyab in view of Fink suggests all of the claimed product limitations it would be expected for it to inherently possess the same physical properties such as the modulus of elasticity.
9. Regarding Claim 10, al-Sheyyab in view of Fink suggests using color designs and black coloring for the coating that makes up said wall (al-Sheyyab: paragraphs 0021, 0023, 0033).
10. Regarding Claim 11, al-Sheyyab in view of Fink suggests a corner connection that is obtained by welding said window or door hollow chamber profile (al-Sheyyab: paragraph 0034).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 July 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights