DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to the claims filed on April 10, 2025.
Status of claims: claims 1-26 are hereby examined below.
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 because: FIGS. 1 and 3-6 are cross-sectional views, yet it is unclear at what cross-section these figures were taken.
Also, the numerical identifier 3 in FIG. 12 lacks a leader line.
Claim 1 – “non-magnetic part” and “an unevenness” are recited and not, as required, identified in the figures.
Claim 13 – “at least one handle or recesses” are not identified in the figures.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “plurality of magnetic means” in the claims.
Because this claim limitation is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1 – shouldn’t “Protection” be amended to “A protection”
Claim 1, lines 1-2 – “said protective panel comprising around entire perimeter a perimeter frame” is awkwardly written and requires revision.
Claim 1, line 7 – shouldn’t “vent” be amended to something along the lines of “panel” or glass, as disclosed on page 5 of applicant’s specification.
Claim 1, line 10 – shouldn’t “the corners” be amended to “corners”
Claim 1, line 13 – shouldn’t “It is” be amended to “and”
Claim 1, line 14 – shouldn’t “located” be amended to “are located”
Claims 2-13, line 1 – shouldn’t “Frame” be amended to “The protection frame”
Claims 2-13, line 1 – shouldn’t “claim 1” be amended to “claim 1,”
Claims 4-8 and 16-21 – shouldn’t “magnetic elements” be amended to “magnetic means”
Claims 11 and 24 – shouldn’t “width” be amended to “height”
Claim 13, line 1 – shouldn’t “embedded” be amended to “an embedded”
Claim 14, line 1 – shouldn’t “a protection” be amended to “the protection”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090183844 to Alkhoury et al. (hereinafter “Alkhoury”) in view of CN 104790860.
Alkhoury discloses a protection frame for large frames comprising a protective panel 38, said protective panel comprising around entire perimeter a perimeter frame 50,52,54,56, (see FIGS. 3 and 5), said perimeter frame comprising:
a magnetic part (see annotated FIG. 3 below) comprising a plurality of magnetic means 62 embedded inside and adhering by magnetism to a fixed frame 22 of a window or door frame; (the examiner has interpreted “a fixed frame of a window or door frame” to constitutes a positive recitation)
a non-magnetic part incorporating the protective panel and being superimposed without contact on a perimeter frame of a vent; and an unevenness between both magnetic and non-magnetic parts, said unevenness higher enough to overlap the perimeter frame of the vent without contact; (see annotated FIG. 3 below)
fixing squares 44 located at the corners of the perimeter frame and at the non-magnetic part; (see FIGS. 2, 3 and 5) and
magnetic means located throughout the perimeter of the magnetic part.
Alkhoury fails to disclose alignment squares, located at the corners of the perimeter frame and at the magnetic part.
CN 104790860 teaches of a similar device with alignment squares (see FIG. 5; note the unidentified L-shaped alignment squares on the left of the figure), located at the corners of the perimeter frame 4
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic part and corners of the perimeter frame of Alhoury with alignment squares, as taught by CN 104790860 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to strengthen the connection between the vertical and horizontal members of the Alhoury perimeter frame. (claim 1)
[AltContent: textbox (Unevenness)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (vent)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Non-magnetic part)][AltContent: textbox (Magnetic part)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
488
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alkhoury, as applied above, further discloses wherein the fixing squares have corner geometry. (see FIG. 2) (claim 2)
Alkhoury, as applied above, further discloses wherein the magnetic elements are neodymium magnets. (see [0032]) (claim 4)
Alkhoury, as applied above, further discloses wherein the magnetic elements are of quadrangular in shape. (see FIG. 5) (claim 5)
Alkhoury, as applied above, further discloses wherein the protective panel is a mosquito net, an external light protection screen, a screen that prevents nighttime visibility into the interior of buildings, an ultraviolet radiation (UV) protection screen and/or an advertising screen. (see FIG. 5 and [0027]) (claim 9)
Alkhoury, as applied above, further discloses wherein the perimeter frame is made of aluminium. (see [0004]) (claim 10)
Alkhoury, as applied above, further discloses wherein the perimeter frame comprises embedded at least one handle or recesses. (note recesses house magnets and element 34; see at least FIG. 3) (claim 13)
Alkhoury, as applied above, further discloses a protection kit for large frames comprising a protection frame described in claim 1 and a set of magnetic elements 60 to be fixed to at least a fixed frame of a frame, in such a way that the fixed frame is fixed to the protection frame using magnetic means 62 embedded in the perimeter frame of the protection frame. (see FIGS. 3 and 5) (claim 14)
Alkhoury, as applied above, further discloses where the fixing squares have corner geometry. (see FIG. 2) (claim 15)
Alkhoury, as applied above, further discloses where the magnetic elements are neodymium magnets. (see [0032]) (claim 17)
Alkhoury, as applied above, further discloses where the magnetic elements are of quadrangular in shape. (see FIG. 5) (claim 18)
Alkhoury, as applied above, further discloses where the protective panel is a mosquito net, an external light protection screen, a screen that prevents nighttime visibility into the interior of buildings, an ultraviolet radiation (UV) protection screen and/or an advertising screen. (see FIG. 5 and [0027]) (claim 22)
Alkhoury, as applied above, further discloses where the perimeter frame is made of aluminium. (see [0004]) (claim 23)
Alkhoury, as applied above, further discloses where the perimeter frame comprises embedded at least one handle or recesses. (claim 26)
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alkhoury in view of CN 104790860, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, in view of DE 102015110172A1.
Alkhoury, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the magnetic means comprising a magnet and a cover.
DE 102015110172A1 teaches of a magnetic means comprises a magnet 7a,7b and a cover (below the magnet; see FIG. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Alkhoury protective frame so that a cover is with the magnetic means, as taught by DE 102015110172A1 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to protect the magnetic means from dirt, debris, and unwanted moisture. (claims 3 and 16)
Claims 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alkhoury in view of CN 104790860, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above.
Alkhoury, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the spacing between magnetic elements is a maximum of 350mm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide that the spacing between magnetic elements is a maximum of 350mm, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure satisfactory spacing between the magnets so that the magnetic connection between the perimeter frame and fixed frame remains strong. (claims 6 and 19)
Alkhoury, as applied above, discloses magnetic elements on the perimeter frame, but fails to disclose the magnetic elements are located at all corners of the perimeter frame (note, the magnetic elements 62 are at top corners of the perimeter frame, but magnetic elements on the vertical portions of the perimeter frame are not indicated to be located at bottom corners of the perimeter frame) and have a distance from the apex of the respective corner between 90mm and 110mm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide magnetic elements at the bottom corners of the perimeter frame and have a distance from the apex of the respective corner between 90mm and 110mm, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure magnetic attraction at all corners of the perimeter frame and fixed frame; thus ensuring a strong magnetic bond between the perimeter frame and fixed frame. (claims 7 and 20)
Alkhoury, as applied above, discloses magnetic elements on the perimeter frame, but fails to disclose the magnetic elements are located at all corners of the perimeter frame (note, the magnetic elements 62 are at top corners of the perimeter frame, but magnetic elements on the vertical portions of the perimeter frame are not indicated to be located at bottom corners of the perimeter frame) and have a distance from the apex of the respective corner of 100mm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide magnetic elements at the bottom corners of the perimeter frame and have a distance from the apex of the respective corner of 100mm, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure magnetic attraction at all corners of the perimeter frame and fixed frame; thus ensuring a strong magnetic bond between the perimeter frame and fixed frame. (claims 8 and 21)
Alkhoury, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the perimeter frame has a width between 5mm and 6mm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the perimeter frame has a width between 5mm and 6mm, with a reasonable expectation of success, for aesthetic reasons and to minimize material and manufacturing costs. (claims 11 and 24)
Alkhoury, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the perimeter frame has a width of 53mm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the perimeter frame has a width between 5mm and 6mm, with a reasonable expectation of success, for aesthetic reasons and to minimize material and manufacturing costs. (claims 12 and 25)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS MENEZES whose telephone number is (571)272-5225. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 7:30 -4 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Daniel Cahn can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Marcus Menezes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights