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 .
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 roulette-based kinematic mechanism of lock partners (as recited in claim 9) 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
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the frame (3) is capable of supporting a door panel (4)” in lines 4-5 and later recites “said frame (3) is capable of supporting a door panel (4)” again in lines 15-16. In the context of the disclosure, it is clear that only one door panel is provided as part of the assembly. The recitation in lines 15-16 should instead recite --the door panel--.
Claims 2-9 each recite “A hatch” in the respective preambles. Dependent claims referencing previously introduced elements should use the article “The” instead of “A” so claims 2-9 should be amended to recite --The hatch--.
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 1-9 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 subframe (2) has an essentially two-dimensional structure” in lines 2-3 and later recites “said subframe (2) is provided with a three-dimensional, continuous, structurally strong truss” in lines 16-17. The required structure of the subframe is not readily clear, as the claim sets forth both a two-dimensional structure and a three-dimensional structure. It is also not readily clear what is required to be “essentially two-dimensional”, as any physical structure is understood to be three-dimensional. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites “means (5) of interconnecting said frame (3) and subframe (2), comprising tabs (5a) and complementary prismatic seats (5b), open in shape, which are coupled together in the guise of half-hinges, designed to allow said hatch (1) to transition between said end configurations” in lines 9-12. The required structure or configuration of the interconnecting means is not readily clear as recited in the claims and read in light of the disclosure. The terms “prismatic”, “open in shape”, and “in the guise of half-hinges” are all indefinite and unclear limitations that are not readily understood in the context of the disclosure as a whole. Does the term “prismatic” positively require a particular shape, or is any shape or cross-section formed at least partially by a polygon considered to be prismatic? It is not readily clear what “open in shape” requires with respect to the interconnecting means, and the term “half-hinges” is also not sufficiently defined in the context of the disclosure. The recitation of “in the guise” of is also indefinite as to whether or not the subsequently recited structure is positively required.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 8 recite relative terms which render the claim(s) indefinite. The terms “complementary”, “simple”, “strong”, “plate-like”, “suitably”, “essentially identical” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims do not specify, and the specification does not clearly set forth a scale or range that is considered to be “simple” or “strong”, etc, and it is also not readily clear what shapes or configurations are required to be considered “complementary” or how similar the dimensions of the plates must be to be considered within the range of “essentially identical”.
Claim 9 recites “said lock partners (19,20) comprise a conjugated roulette-based kinematic mechanism in which a roulette (16) carried by an arm (17), swinging around an equilibrium configuration, is reversibly switchable relative to a base (16) upon thrusting said door panel (4).” The term “roulette-based kinematic mechanism” is not sufficiently defined in the context of the disclosure, and it is not a well-known term in the art. It is not readily clear what structure or configuration is required to be considered “roulette-based”, or what exactly constitutes a “roulette” and an “equilibrium configuration” as required by the claim.
Dependent claims not specifically addressed above are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). All claims are examined as best understood.
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 1-3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marinelli (DE 20 2016 004 549). Note: A copy of a machine translation of the Marinelli patent document has been provided with this Office action. References to the disclosure of Marinelli are directed to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Marinelli discloses a hatch refined for building walls (paragraph 0001), comprising: a subframe (2) and a frame (edge 3a of the panel 3) made from plastic (plastic composition is disclosed in paragraph 0007), wherein the subframe has an essentially two-dimensional structure and is capable of attaching to a furnishing wall at a corresponding through opening (paragraph 0007) [FIG. 2], and the frame is capable of supporting a door panel (outer planar surface of the panel 3) and movable relative to said subframe between two end configurations [FIGS. 1, 2], in a first of which, where closed, said door panel intercepts the through opening of the building wall [FIG. 1] and, in a second end configuration, where open, said frame is able to allow the through opening of the building wall to be traversed [FIG. 2]; means of interconnecting (4) said frame and subframe, comprising tabs (4b) and complementary prismatic seats (4d), open in shape, which are coupled together in the guise of half-hinges (as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth above, the interconnecting means 4 reads on the claimed “open in shape”, “prismatic seats”, and “in the guise of half-hinges” based on the structure shown in Figures 2, 4, and 5 and disclosed in paragraphs 0018), designed to allow said hatch to transition between said end configurations; and means of locking said hatch (5) designed to close and open said hatch, operating elastically, and switching upon a simple thrust action exerted against the door panel (paragraph 0019); said hatch being characterised in that said frame is capable of supporting a door panel conforming to the building wall receiving said hatch [FIG. 1]; and that said subframe is provided with a three-dimensional, continuous, structurally strong truss (6), positioned along its own outline [FIG. 1], which is integrated as a single body with said subframe to support said door panel in due coplanarity with said building wall construction [FIGS. 4, 5], said truss incorporating the open prismatic seats of said interconnecting means [FIG. 4], which are shaped in such a way as to prevent the frame from assuming an oblique orientation relative to the subframe such as to render it accidentally disengageable from the subframe itself (the interconnection of the pins 4b and seats 4d prevents accidental disengagement and oblique tilting of the panel frame 3a, which reads on the limitation given a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Marinelli discloses that said one or each three-dimensional truss has a polylateral cross-section [FIGS. 1, 2]; and said cross section has a quadrilateral shape (as shown in at least Figures 1 and 2, the ribs 6 forming the truss define four-sided quadrilateral shapes).
Regarding claim 7, Marinelli discloses that said locking means of said frame and subframe comprise locking partners (13, 14) reversibly engageable elastically (paragraph 0019), operating along a plane of action orthogonal to the door panel (as shown in Figures 1-2, the locking partners 13 and 14 operate along a plane that is perpendicular to that of the door panel when the door panel is in the closed position).
Regarding claim 8, Marinelli discloses that said lock partners have geometrically complementary shapes (at 13a, 15), at least one of which is carried by a respective arm (arm of the locking partner 13) cantilevered by at least one said three-dimensional truss [FIGS. 1, 2], at least one other lock partner (14) being carried by said frame [FIG. 2].
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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinelli (DE 20 2016 004 549) in view of Snyder (U.S. Patent No. 7,566,263).
Regarding claims 4-6, Marinelli discloses the truss and interposed plates (plates of the truss structure 6, shown in at least Figures 1-2), but does not disclose beams.
Nonetheless, Snyder discloses a frame having a truss [FIG. 3] including at least one pair of plate-like, parallel, elongated beams (150, 136) which are connected by interposed plates (152) suitably distributed transversely to the beams [FIG. 3], wherein said plates are oblique to the beams [FIG. 3], and said beams and said plates have essentially identical heights to each other [FIGS. 3, 4, 10].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the truss of Marinelli to include the beams taught by Snyder, in order to provide further reinforcement for the truss, and to provide a consistent appearance when the subframe is viewed from a side of the assembly after installation.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinelli (DE 20 2016 004 549) in view of St. Louis (U.S. Patent No. 6,669,250).
Regarding claim 9, Marinelli discloses the lock partners , wherein the lock partners are reversibly switchable relative to a base upon thrusting said door panel (paragraph 0019), but does not explicitly disclose a roulette-based kinematic mechanism.
Nonetheless, St. Louis discloses a lock mechanism comprising a roulette-based kinematic mechanism in which a roulette (16) carried by an arm (14), swinging around an equilibrium configuration (provided by groove 44 and positions 46, 48, 94, and 96), is reversibly switchable relative to a base (12) upon thrusting a door panel (84; column 8, lines 22-46) [FIGS. 6, 7].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lock partners of Marinelli to have the roulette-based configuration taught by St. Louis, in order to provide means for quickly securing the frame in a closed position while allowing tool-free and hidden operation of the locking means so as to ensure a consistent outer appearance for the assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABE L MASSAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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.
/ABE MASSAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
