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 .
The following final office action is in response to the reply filed March 4, 2026.
Drawings
The drawing correction filed March 4, 2026 has not been approved because the applicant failed to comply with “[a]ll changes to the drawings shall be explained, in detail, in either the drawing amendment or remarks section of the amendment paper” as set forth in 37 CFR 1.121(d). Accordingly, the previous drawing objections have been repeated below.
The drawings are objected to because the dimension lines in figure 1 are confusing and should be deleted. See annotated figure 1 below.
The drawing are objected to because reference characters 115, 117, 119, 121 and 123 in figure 1 do not have attendant lead lines.
In figure 1, it is suggested that the applicant underline reference characters 115, 117 and 119 so as to indicate that the reference characters are referring to the panel upon which the reference characters are presented.
Figures 3-5 are objected to because they fail to include the proper cross sectional shading in accordance with MPEP 608.02 IX.
Figures 6-8 are objected to because the lines are too dark to give the drawings satisfactory reproduction characteristics.
Finally, the drawings are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) since the lines, numbers, and letters are not sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined as to give the drawings satisfactory reproduction characteristics.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
714
1010
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
716
1012
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “Fig. 7is” on line 1 of paragraph 14, as amended March 4, 2026, appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “[t]he interlock assembly, additionally wherein” on line 2 is grammatically incorrect and confusing. It is suggested the applicant delete the phrase “[t]he interlock assembly, additionally wherein” on line 2 to avoid confusion.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “a first direction” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because the use of the word “first” implies that a second direction will be subsequently set forth. However, the claims fail to set forth a second direction.
Claim 1 is objected to because “a first strut extension, extending parallel to the first direction” on lines 2-3 brings the clarity of the claim into question. In the specification, the applicant refers to the first strut extension as element 110, however, claim 1 refers to the first strut extension as comprising element 112 defined in the specification as the second strut extension. Although this is permissible, it is needlessly confusing.
Claim 1 is objected to because “a second strut extension, extending perpendicular to the first direction” on lines 3-4 brings the clarity of the claim into question. In the specification, the applicant refers to the second strut extension as element 112, however, claim 1 refers to the second strut extension as comprising element 110 defined in the specification as the first strut extension. Although this is permissible, it is needlessly confusing.
Claim 1 is objected to because “a first end to a second end” on line 7 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention includes the ends to which the applicant is referring.
Claim 2 is objected to because “rotated 180 degrees” on line 4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the identical shapes are rotated relative to. What element(s) of the invention are the identical shaped rotated relative to?
Claim 10 is objected to because “a first end to a second end” on line 11 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention includes the ends to which the applicant is referring.
Claim 10 is objected to because “a first end to a second end” on line 24 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention includes the ends to which the applicant is referring.
Claim 10 is objected to because “the first end or the second end” on line 27 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the first and second ends set forth on line 11 of claim 10 or to the first and second ends set forth on line 24 of claim 10.
Claim 11 is objected to because “rotated 180 degrees” on line 5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the identical shapes are rotated relative to. What element(s) of the invention are the identical shaped rotated relative to?
Claim 14 is objected to because “configured to couple with either side of an opposing pair of interlock assemblies” on lines 3-4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. What are the opposing pair of interlock assemblies? Do they comprise the same structure as the first and second interlock assemblies set forth in claim 10? If so, it is unclear how either side of an interlock assembly, as shown in figure 4, can couple with another interlock assembly as shown in figure 4. Note that it does not appear that the hook member 116 would be able to couple with the wall frame member 120. Thus, only one side of each of the interlock assemblies would be able to couple with a corresponding side of each of the other interlock assemblies, i.e., only the side of the interlock assemblies that have the hook members 116 can couple with one another.
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 1-18 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.
Recitations such as “along the first direction” on lines 6-7 of claim 1 render the claims indefinite because it is not clear what comprises the first direction. Lines 2-4 of claim 1 imply that the first direction extends horizontally from left to right in figure 4 while lines 6-7 of claim 1 imply that the first direction extends vertically from the sill 122 to the top frame 109 as shown in figure 1. It is requested that the applicant further amend the claims so as to clearly set forth the first direction. Also see “the first direction” on line 11 of claim 10.
Recitations such as “a first portion of the first strut extension . . . is adjacent to an exterior side of the plate member” on lines 11-13 of claim 1 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear how first and second portions of the first strut member can be adjacent to interior and exterior sides of the plate member. See figure 4 which shows the first strut extension 112 (defined in the specification as the second strut extension) being clearly on the exterior side of the panel member 105 (although not shown in figure 4, the panel member would extend into the channel 129). It would appear that there is no portion of the first strut extension 112 that is adjacent to an interior side of the panel member. Thus, the recitation of first and second portions of the first strut extension being adjacent to both interior and exterior sides of the plate member appears to be impossible. Also see lines 15-17 and 28-30 of claim 10.
Recitations such as “each side of the interlock assembly . . . pair of interlock assemblies” on lines 2-3 of claim 5 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear how the side of the interlock assembly 100 which is defined by the frame wall member 120 (fig. 4) is able to couple to with the interlock groove 126 (fig. 4) of another interlock assembly.
Recitations such as “prevents direct contact between the frame member and the end of the panel member” on lines 2-3 of claim 7 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear how the strut prevents direct contact between the frame member and the end of the panel member. See figure 4 which shows the strut 102 extending on one side of the panel member and an end edge of the panel member. Note that the strut is not disposed between the other side of the panel member and the frame wall member 120 of the frame member 104 and, thus, cannot prevent direct contact between the frame member 104 and the end of the panel member.
Recitations such as “a first one of the opposing pair of interlock assemblies” on lines 2-3 of claim 15 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the first one of the opposing pair of interlock assemblies set forth above or is attempting to set forth another first one of the opposing pair of interlock assemblies in addition to the one set forth above.
Recitations such as “prevents contact with the portion of the interior surface of the first panel member” on lines 4-5 of claim 16 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what elements are being prevented from contacting one another. In other words, what element is being prevented from contacting the interior surface of the first panel member?
Recitations such as “a weatherstrip material” on line 3 of claim 17 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear how both of the grooves of the first and second strut hook members hold the same weatherstrip material. It appears that the first strut hook member would hold a first weatherstrip material and the second strut hook member would hold a second weatherstrip material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
An prior art analysis of the claim language to determine the allowability of the claims could not be made at this time due to the 35 USC 112 informalities set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights