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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,241,307. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they substantially overlap in scope and all the claimed limitations can be transparently found in the patented claims.
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 1-2, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phi Technik Fuer EP 2233676 A2 (hereinafter ‘Phi’). Note that the figure numbers used in the below rejection correspond to figures in the foreign reference, while the paragraph numbers cited correspond to the machine translation herein provided.
In regard to claims 1 and 16, Phi teaches a door assembly, comprising:
a door (see [0002]) having at least one panel movable between open and closed positions (note that doors are well known in the art for being movable between open and closed positions, thus it would have been obvious that the door of Phi can be opened and closed so as to perform as a door); and
a frame (see [0002] “frame profiles of windows, doors” and [0008]) for receiving the door, the frame including:
header (4) extending in a first direction (horizontally) along a top of the door (note that Phi teaches element 4 being a base part, however, Phi discloses in [0002] that its connector is for connecting frame elements of windows and doors, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the top part is also element 4, since a frame is composed of four sides including top and bottom and it would have been obvious that the top and bottom elements are connected to the sides in the same manner so as to provide for a quick and efficient assembly);
a jamb (5) extending in a vertical direction transversely to the first direction (see fig. 5) along a side of the door; and
a connection system (figs. 1-5) for connecting the header and the jamb, the connection system including a header mounting block (2) connected to the header (fig. 5) and a jamb mounting block (3) connected to the jamb (fig. 5), wherein the jamb mounting block and the header mounting block are engaged to one another with a plurality of protrusions (22) that are received within corresponding ones of a plurality of receptacles (16), wherein the protrusions and receptacles of the engaged jamb mounting block and the header mounting block align the header and the jamb with one another and support the header on the jamb (as seen in fig. 6).
In regard to claim 2, Phi teaches the claimed invention wherein the plurality of protrusions and receptacles include:
a first protrusion (first 22) and a first receptacle (first 16) for receiving the first protrusion at a first location between the jamb and header mounting blocks, and
a second protrusion (other 22) and a second receptacle (other 16) for receiving the second protrusion at a second location (note in figs. 2-4 that the receptacles are at separate locations) between the jamb and header mounting blocks (see figs. 8-9).
In regard to claim 13, Phi teaches the claimed invention further comprising aligned bores (28) in each of the plurality of protrusions (see fig. 4) and the corresponding one of the plurality of receptacles (see 28 in fig. 2), and further comprising a fastener (30) in each of the aligned bores to secure the jamb and header mounting blocks (see fig. 7).
In regard to claim 17, Phi teaches the claimed invention wherein the plurality of protrusions receptacles correspond in shape and size to a corresponding one of the plurality of protrusions (see figs. 1-4).
Phi does not explicitly teach the protrusions extend from the jamb mounting block and the receptacles extend into the header mounting block. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the protrusions extending from the jamb mounting block and the receptacles extending into the header mounting block because doing so involves mere rearrangement of parts and one of ordinary skill in the art would have prefer to have the protrusion in the header so that matching the jamb receptacles can be achieved easier.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-12, 14-15, and 18-20 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:
For claim 3, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest an assembly for joining a jamb to a header via a jamb mounting block and a header mounting block having protrusions and receptacles that engage with one another, wherein the location where a first protrusion engages with a first receptacle is horizontally and vertically offset from the location where a second protrusion engages with a second receptacle, as recited within the context of the claim.
For claim 5, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest an assembly for joining a jamb to a header via a jamb mounting block and a header mounting block having protrusions and receptacles that engage with one another, wherein the location where a first protrusion engages with a first receptacle is offset from the location where a second protrusion engages with a second receptacle in a direction that is transverse to the horizontal direction and the vertical direction, as recited within the context of the claim.
For claim 6, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest an assembly for joining a
jamb to a header via a jamb mounting block and a header mounting block having first, second and third protrusions and receptacles that engage with one another, wherein the location where a first protrusion engages with a first receptacle is offset from the location where a second protrusion engages and the location where the third protrusion and receptable engage is above the first location and the second location and adjacent to a top flange of the header and an upper end of the jamb, as recited within the context of the claim.
For claim 8, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest an assembly for joining a jamb to a header via a jamb mounting block and a header mounting block having protrusions and receptacles that engage with one another, wherein the protrusions extend through an inner wall of the jamb, as recited within the context of the claim.
For claim 14, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest an assembly for joining a jamb to a header via a jamb mounting block and a header mounting block having protrusions and receptacles that engage with one another, wherein a third receptacle is defined by the header mounting block along the bottom flange of the header, as recited within the context of the claim.
For claim 18, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest an assembly for joining a jamb to a header via a jamb mounting block and a header mounting block having protrusions and receptacles that engage with one another, wherein the jamb mounting block includes first and second arms for extending across the jamb and each of the protrusions are located respectively on each of the arms, as recited within the context of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 5PM.
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 E Glessner can be reached on 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights