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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the configurations including “a robot arm is configured to hold the inner sash in position while the infill material is attached to the inner sash”, as claimed in claim 19, and “a robot arm with a vacuum cup effector is configured to push the attached inner sash and infill material toward the retaining portion of the first sidewall of the outer sash”, as claimed in claim 20, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites “applying double-sided adhesive to the first wedge”. This is awkwardly worded and unclear (i.e. is Applicant claiming a “double-sided adhesive tape”? Examiner notes that it is unclear what would be considered a “double-sided” fluid adhesive). 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ramchandran (US 2022/0098922).
Regarding claim 1, Ramchandran discloses a screen system comprising: a plurality of frame assemblies defining a frame (See Figures 1-2), each frame assembly being connected to at least one other frame assembly; a sheet of infill material (element 13) secured to the frame; at least one of the frame assemblies comprising: an outer sash (element 12) comprising a first sidewall (Figure 8, right vertical wall of element 12, including elements 51 and 52), a second sidewall (Figure 8, left vertical wall of element 12), and at least one first engagement member (area of elements 61 and 84), the first sidewall including a retaining portion (considered at least element 52 and wall structure supporting element 51); a cover sash (element 26) comprising at least one second engagement member (element 83) [configured to engage the at least one first engagement member such that the cover sash occupies a position opposing the retaining portion of the first sidewall]* and, in combination with the retaining portion, defines a channel (area in which element 13 is received) therebetween; and an inner sash (considered element 24 or elements 24 and 51 in combination) disposed in the channel between the retaining portion and the cover sash, the inner sash configured to retain an end of the sheet of infill material.
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a screen system, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the screen system disclosed by Ramchandran is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, Ramchandran discloses a first wedge (element 27a) disposed, at least in part, between the retaining portion and the sheet of infill material, the first wedge including a first stopper portion (considered portion of element 27a engaged with element 13) extending beyond the first sidewall and engaging the end of the sheet of infill material.
Regarding claim 3, Ramchandran discloses wherein the retaining portion comprises a plurality of third engagement members (Figures 8-9, considered portion of element 52 in which portion of element 27a is received and retained) defining a slot (See Figures 8-9, area in which portion of element 27a is received and retained) [configured to receive and retain a portion of the first wedge]*.
Regarding claim 4, Ramchandran discloses further comprising: a second wedge (element 27b) disposed, at least in part, between the cover sash and the sheet of infill material, the second wedge including a second stopper portion (considered portion of element 27b engaged with element 13) extending beyond the cover sash and engaging the end of the sheet.
Regarding claim 5, Ramchandran discloses wherein the inner sash comprises two legs (elements 24 and 51) [configured for receiving and retaining the end of the sheet of infill material therebetween]*, the screen system further comprising a fastener (element 25) inserted through the two legs of the inner sash and through the end of the sheet of infill material.
Regarding claim 8, Ramchandran discloses wherein the cover sash defines an outer boundary that is an extension of the second sidewall of the outer sash (See Figures 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 10, Ramchandran discloses wherein the first wedge and the second wedge have the same shape (See Figures 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 11, Ramchandran discloses wherein: the first sidewall includes a first base portion (Figure 8, considered portion of right sidewall below element 51) extending into the retaining portion and the second sidewall includes a second base portion (considered top of left sidewall) opposing the first base portion.
Regarding claim 12, Ramchandran discloses wherein the infill material comprises a mesh (See at least paragraphs [0027-0029]).
Regarding claim 13, Ramchandran discloses a method of assembling the screen system of claim 1, the method comprising: providing the sheet of infill material, the outer sash, the cover sash, and the inner sash; attaching the inner sash to an end of the sheet of infill material; pushing the attached inner sash and infill material toward the retaining portion of the first sidewall of the outer sash; and engaging the at least one second engagement member of the cover sash with the at least one first engagement member of the outer sash to form the channel in which the inner sash is disposed. Examiner notes that Ramchandran is entirely capable of the above method.
Regarding claim 14, Ramchandran discloses further comprising inserting a portion of a first wedge into a slot in the retaining portion (See Figures 8-9).
Regarding claim 15, Ramchandran discloses inserting a tip of a second wedge between the cover sash and inner sash, the insertion causing the cover sash to rotate to a new position (See Figures 10d-f).
Regarding claim 16, Ramchandran discloses pressing the second wedge into a space between the inner sash and the cover sash (See Figures 10d-f).
Regarding claim 17, Ramchandran discloses wherein: the inner sash comprises two legs (element 24 and 51); and the step of attaching the inner sash to an end of a mesh and/or other infill sheet comprises: receiving the mesh in a channel defined by the two legs; and applying a fastener (element 25) through the mesh and through the two legs (See Figures 10a-f).
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.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramchandran (US 2022/0098922) in view of Farina et al. (US 2016/0273263) (hereinafter Farina).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Ramchandran lacks use of an adhesive. Farina however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure a screen system comprising: a sheet of infill material (element 60) secured to a frame; at least one frame assembly comprising: an outer sash (element 22) comprising a first sidewall (Figure 1a, left vertical wall), a second sidewall (Figure 1a, right vertical wall), and at least one first engagement member (element 36), the first sidewall including a retaining portion (area of element 34); a cover sash (element 28) comprising at least one second engagement member (element 64), a channel (area in which element 40 is received); and an inner sash (element 40) disposed in the channel between the retaining portion and the cover sash, the inner sash configured to retain an end of the sheet of infill material, and an adhesive retaining the inner sash to the screen assembly (paragraph [0120], “Where adhesive tape is used as the friction interface to reduce the chance of withdrawal of the infill material from the channel 30, the adhesive tape 64 can be applied to either between the first web 26 and the infill material 60, or between the locking insert 40 and the infill material 60”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the screen system of Ramchandran such that double-sided adhesive tape is used to retain the assembly components in an assembled state (including adhering the inner sash to the first and/or second wedge), since this would help to ensure that the screen system remains in the assembled configuration, and resists inadvertent disassembly and tampering, which would improve the overall security of the system, which would be desirable for potential users. Examiner notes that use of a double-sided adhesive tape, as taught by Farina, would ensure all components are directly or indirectly adhered together, including the first wedge being adhered to the inner sash and/or the second wedge being adhered to the inner sash.
Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed (i.e. used adhesive tape to adhere components), using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramchandran (US 2022/0098922) in view of Sawatzky et al. (US 2014/0261962) (hereinafter Sawatzky)
Ramchandran lacks wherein a robot arm is configured to hold the inner sash in position while the infill material is attached to the inner sash, and wherein a robot arm with a vacuum cup effector is configured to push the attached inner sash and infill material toward the retaining portion of the first sidewall of the outer sash. Sawatzky teaches that it is known in the art to use a robotic arm (element 25) with a “vacuum cup effector” (element 23) for the purpose of moving and installing “a sheet from a cutting table onto a spacer frame of an insulating glass unit” (See Abstract, See at least paragraph [0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to automate the assembly process of Ramchandran such that robotic arms with vacuum capability are used for assembly, since robotic arms are well-known in the art for the purpose of automating manufacturing, and the use of robotic arms including vacuum capability for the assembly of the screen system of Ramchandran would function as intended for the purpose of Ramchandran. Examiner additionally notes that robotic automation is known to be desirable in manufacturing for numerous reasons (i.e. increased output, enhanced precision, reduced labor cost, etc.), which would be found desirable for production of the screen system of Ramchandran.
Additionally, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to automate the assembly process of Ramchandran such that robotic arms with vacuum capability are used for assembly, since it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(E)), and the use of robotic arms with vacuum is a well-known manufacturing configuration, and would have been one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of assembling the screen system of Ramchandran.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN B REPHANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/JUSTIN B REPHANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights