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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/14/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20, 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said at least two" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regards to claims 2-4, it is unclear to which set of blocking elements are being referenced. Are these a new set of blocking elements? The examiner suggests saying “wherein said at least one primary blocking element and said at least one secondary blocking elements each comprise a plurality of blocking elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-7, 9, 10 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schneck et al. (DE 202015106963).
In regards to claim 1, as best understood, Schneck discloses a glazed system comprising:
a glazing (as seen in fig. 8), comprising structural plies (as seen in fig. 8, reference element 3), said glazing being clamped in place by a structure (as seen in fig. 8),
at least one primary blocking element (as seen in fig. 8, reference element 15), rigidly connected to the glazing in a zone where the clamping is exerted by the structure (as seen in fig. 8),
at least one secondary blocking element (as seen in fig. 8, reference element 11), rigidly connected to the structure,
said at least one primary blocking element 15 and secondary blocking elements 11 being configured to cooperate with one another when the glazing slips in the a plane wherein the glazing extends, which slip is oriented towards the a center of said glazing, so as to block said slippage, a cooperation between said at least two primary blocking elements (as seen in fig. 8, reference elements 15 & 16) and two secondary blocking elements (as seen in fig. 8, reference elements 11 & 12) being effected directly or indirectly by means of respective contact surfaces (as seen in fig. 8) of said primary and secondary blocking elements, said contact surfaces being inclined with respect to the plane of the glazing, an angle of inclination of the contact surfaces with respect to the plane of the glazing being between 5° and 60° (para. [0020]),
said at least one primary blocking element 15 and secondary blocking element 11 being further configured to have a nominal configuration wherein they said at least one primary blocking element 15 and secondary blocking element 11 do not cooperate together when the glazing is not subjected to any slippage in said plane (as seen in fig. 8).
The examiner wants to state for the record that although the primary blocking element and secondary blocking elements are touching, they are at a static configuration or at rest. When slippage occurs then the block elements cooperate with one another at that time.
In regards to claim 2, as best understood, Schneck discloses the claimed invention, further comprising a plurality of primary blocking elements 15, as well as a plurality of secondary blocking elements 11, each primary blocking element 15 being configured to cooperate with a single secondary blocking element 11 (as seen in fig. 8).
In regards to claim 3, as best understood, Schneck discloses the claimed invention, comprising a single primary blocking element 15, each single blocking element extending continuously so as to form a closed loop within which the structural plies are arranged (as seen in fig. 8).
The examiner is making the record clear that the interpretation for a closed loop is the blocking elements are all connected.
In regards to claim 4, as best understood, Schneck discloses the claimed invention, wherein
At least two primary blocking elements 15 & 16 and at least two secondary blocking elements 11 & 12 are configured to cooperate with one another respectively rigidly connected to an external structural ply (as seen in fig. 8, reference element 3) of the structural plies of the glazing and to a mounting element (as seen in fig. 8) of the structure arranged opposite said external structural ply 3 (as seen in fig. 8).
In regards to claim 5, as best understood, Schneck discloses the claimed invention, wherein, said at least one primary blocking element 15 is integral with the external structural ply 3 (as seen in fig. 8).
In regards to claim 6, as best understood, Schneck discloses the claimed invention, wherein said at least one secondary blocking element 11 is integral with said mounting element of the structure arranged opposite of the external structural ply 3 (as seen in fig. 8).
In regards to claim 7, as best understood, Schneck discloses a method comprising by providing a glazed system for a building (para. [0038]).
In regards to claim 9, as best understood, Schneck discloses an assembly comprising a structure (para. [0009]).
In regards to claim 10, as best understood, Schneck discloses the claimed invention, wherein a method comprises providing a glazed system for a building (para. [0038]).
In regards to claim 12, as best understood, Schneck discloses the claimed invention, wherein the glazing is a laminated glazing (para. [0037]).
In regards to claim 15, as best understood, Schneck discloses the claimed invention, wherein the mounting element is a retainer (as seen in fig. 8, reference element 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 8, 11, 13, 14, & 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneck (DE 202015106963).
In regards to claim 8, 11 & 18-20, as best understood, Schneck does not disclose a vehicle comprising a glazed system.
However, Schneck teaches glazing for balconies (para. [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a glazing system wherever desired and as it is well known in the art to put glass railings on maritime vessels or ships, which are vehicles.
In regards to claim 13 & 14, as best understood, Schneck discloses the claimed invention, however, Schneck does not disclose wherein the angle of inclination of the contact surfaces with respect to the plane of the glazing is between 20° and 40° and thus equal to 25°.
Schneck teaches that having an angle between 5-10° for sufficient fixing forces and to uphold a stable position of the wedge on a balcony (para. [0020]).
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 inclination of the blocking elements to further support the glass railings by changing various thicknesses of the blocking elements to increase fixing forces while upholding a stable position from additional forces such as high winds or waves.
Although Wall does not disclose the exact range, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the angle of inclination to be in a range from 20-40°, than equal to 25°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art.
In regards to claim 16, as best understood, Schneck discloses the claimed invention, however, Schneck does not disclose on how the primary blocking element 15 is attached to the external structural ply 3 either by gluing, sintering, brazing or bolting.
Schneck teaches a wedge-fixing arrangement (para. [0016]).
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 wedge-fixing arrangement by adding glue between the primary blocking element and the external structural ply to add more resistance of the primary blocking element thus to prevent the primary blocking element from breaking off.
In regards to claim 17, as best understood, Schneck discloses the claimed invention, however, Schneck does not disclose on how the secondary blocking element 11 is attached and fixed to said structural mounting element opposite the external structural ply 3 either by gluing, sintering, brazing or bolting.
Schneck teaches a wedge-fixing arrangement (para. [0016]).
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 wedge-fixing arrangement by adding glue between the secondary blocking element and structural mounting opposite external structural ply to add more resistance of the secondary blocking element thus to prevent the secondary blocking element from breaking off.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARRETT C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7.30am-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 Glessner can be reached at (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.
/GARRETT CHRISTOPHER PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
