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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 6/22/26 is acknowledged. The cancellation of claims 1 - 12 directed to Species A is acknowledged. Claims 13 - 32 remain for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 38, 26. 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. 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0094] recites that the unconcealed embodiment is illustrated in figures 7 - 18, but only figures 7 - 12 illustrate the unconcealed embodiment.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13 – 15, 17 – 19, 23 - 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Romero et al. (US 10,865,594 hereinafter Romero).
Regarding claim 13, Romero discloses a shower door header (fig. 1a)(5), comprising: an elongated body (9)(col. 3, ln. 52) including a top portion (see annotated figure below); and opposing wedge shaped fingers (27a, 27b) defining an aperture (25) having a trapezoidal profile (see annotated figure below).
Regarding claim 14, Romero discloses all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further provides that the body has a rectangular profile (see fig. 6a, walls 13, 11 define a rectangular profile; 19 and 21 are also rectangular).
Regarding claim 15, Romero discloses that the body defines one or more open cavities (19, 21)(fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 17, Romero discloses all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further provides that the elongate body comprises a sidewall (23), the top portion being disposed on the sidewall (see annotated figure below).
Regarding claims 18 - 19, Romero shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further provides that the opposing fingers are configured to cooperatively receive a foot of a guide element of a roller assembly, with the aperture (25) configured to receive the foot of the guide element such that the roller assembly is movable lengthwise along the elongated body (see fig. 1a)(col. 4, ln. 26-30). Note that the device of Romero is fully capable of receiving a foot of a roller assembly as functionally claimed. It should be noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114(I).
Regarding claim 23, Romero shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows that the aperture is configured to receive a guide of a shower door catcher, the guide having a profile complementary to the aperture. Note that the device of Romero is fully capable of receiving shower catcher guide as functionally claimed. It should be noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114(I).
Regarding claim 24, as shown in the annotated figure below, the opposing wedge-shaped fingers (27a, 27b) extend upwardly from the top portion to define the aperture therebetween.
Regarding claim 25, Romero shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows wherein the elongated body has an unconcealed design configured to be at least partially visible when the shower door header is installed. See fig. 1a., 2, 5. Note that there is no indication that there is a cover provided over the frame member (5).
Regarding claim 26, Romero shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows that the one or more open cavities (19) are configured to receive one or more plugs of a shower header retainer for securing the shower door header to a wall jamb. Note that the device of Romero is fully capable of receiving plug as functionally claimed. It should be noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114(I).
Regarding claim 27, Romero shows all of the instant invention and further shows that the aperture extends lengthwise along the elongated body (see fig. 6a).
PNG
media_image1.png
477
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romero.
Regarding claim 16, Romero shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show that the trapezoidal profile is isosceles. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. However, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed shape presents a novel or unexpected result (MPEP 2144.05(III)). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the profile shape of Romero to perform equally well as applicant' s. It would have been obvious to have modified the device of profile to be shaped as claimed since such a modification is a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Claim(s) 20 - 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romero, as applied to claim 16, in view of FR 2997992 (hereinafter FR ‘992).
Regarding claims 20-21, Romero shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show a roller bumper as claimed. Attention is turned to FR ‘992 which teaches a similar door header (fig. 3) having an aperture which receives a roller bumper (400) having a boss that is shape complementary to the profile of the bumper. See annotated figure below It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided a bumper in the device of Romero so that the doors are not translated in excess of a distance intended for the enclosure/doors. As to the limitation that the boss be complementary to the isosceles trapezoidal profile, it is obvious to the ordinary artisan to shape a bumper to match the track in which it is inserted. This is a design consideration that is easily resolved by the ordinary artisan. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Regarding claim 22, Romero as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and under the proposed modification the roller bumper is configured to be disposed between two roller assemblies to maintain a spacing between the two roller assemblies. Note that the roller bumper is fully capable of being disposed between two roller assemblies as claimed. It should be noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114(I).
PNG
media_image2.png
484
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28 – 32 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 28 – 32 variously positively recite the roller assembly and accordingly, the claims require the combination of roller assembly and shower header which is not suggested by Romero.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wei (WO 2026117947) shows a shower header with wedge shaped fingers that cooperatively receive a foot of guide of a roller assembly (fig. 4) substantially similar to the disclosed invention, but is unavailable as prior art as the publication date is well after the effective filing date. Tsai (US 7,841,048) teaches a roller with decorative inner and outer covers (see fig. 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN L DEERY whose telephone number is (571)270-1928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur, 7:30am - 4:30pm; Fri 8:00am-12:00pm.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/ERIN DEERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights