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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 10/17/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. 5,657,805 – Magro in view of US Pat. 6,112,799 – Mullet et al., hereinafter Mullet.
Regarding claim 1.
Magro discloses a door assembly (10, fig 1) (Examiner notes that, unless otherwise noted, the embodiment of fig 15 is relied upon. However, other figures may be referred to for illustration purposes.) comprising:
a door panel (26, fig 1) having a top edge (at 18, fig 1), a bottom edge (30, fig 1), a first vertical edge (at 22, fig 2) and a second vertical edge (at 24, fig 1), the door panel being fixed proximate the top edge to a drum (at 20, fig 1), the door panel winding onto and unwinding from the drum to open (as in fig 1) and close (as in fig 2) a doorway (12, fig 1);
a first side column (22’, fig 15) and a second side column (24’, fig 15), wherein the first side column is positioned proximate a first side of the doorway and the second side column is positioned proximate a second side of the doorway (See fig 1), the first side column and the second side column each comprising a guide track (40, fig 9) and each guide track comprising a first portion (46, fig 14) arranged vertically above a second portion (80, fig 14) relative to a direction of travel of the door panel when unwinding from the drum to close the doorway (See fig 15, compare with fig 1), wherein
the first portion of each guide track defining a first guide channel having a first depth (See annotated fig 15) extending from a rear portion of each guide track to a first engagement portion (See annotated fig 15) of each guide track, the first engagement portion of each guide track further defining a first gap having a first gap width (see annotated fig 9) so that the door panel (at 48, fig 9) may extend from the doorway through the first gap (see annotated fig 9) into the first guide channel, the first engagement portion bounding a side of the first guide channel and setting the first depth and first gap width continuously (See annotated fig 15) along a majority of the guide track from a top portion of the guide track to the second portion of the guide track (See annotated fig 15), or a transition portion (80a, fig 15) of the guide track, located beneath the first portion of the guide track; and
the second portion of each guide track defining a second guide channel having a second depth (See annotated fig 15) extending from the rear portion of the guide track to a second engagement portion (80b, fig 15) of each guide track, the second engagement portion of each guide track further defining a second gap having a second gap width (see annotated fig 9) so that the door panel may extend from the doorway through the second gap into the second guide channel (See fig 11), the second engagement portion bounding a side of the second guide channel (See annotated fig 15) and defining the second gap (See annotated fig 9) continuously (See annotated fig 15) from the first portion of the guide track or the transition portion (80a, fig 15) of the guide track to proximate a lower boundary of the doorway S, fig 15), wherein the second depth is less than the first depth (See annotated fig 15)
Magro does not disclose the second gap width is less than the first gap width.
However, Mullet teaches the second gap width is less than the first gap width (See annotated fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Magro with the gap widths of Mullet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of providing a more secure lock-up at a closed position.
PNG
media_image1.png
690
966
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
716
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
698
710
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3.
The combination of Magro and Mullet teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Magro further discloses each guide track (22’ or 24’, Fig 15) comprises a transition gap (at 80a, fig 15), the transition gap being positioned between the first gap and the second gap (see annotated fig 9 above).
Regarding claim 4.
The combination of Magro and Mullet teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Magro further discloses the transition portion (80a, fig 15) of the guide track includes a transition guide channel depth, the transition guide channel depth being the first depth (See annotated fig 15) at the top portion of the transition guide channel depth and is the second depth (See annotated fig 15) at the bottom portion of the transition guide channel depth.
Regarding claim 5.
The combination of Magro and Mullet teaches all limitations of claim 3.
Magro further discloses the transition gap has a transition gap width (See at 80a in annotated fig 15).
PNG
media_image4.png
690
966
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6.
The combination of Magro and Mullet teaches all limitations of claim 5.
Magro further discloses the transition gap width (at 80a, fig 15) is equal to the second gap width (at 80b, fig 15, see annotated fig 15. Distances are equal where 80a meets 80b. See fig 15).
Regarding claim 7.
The combination of Magro and Mullet teaches all limitations of claim 5.
Magro further discloses the transition gap width is equal to the first gap width at a top portion of the transition gap (See fig 15), and the transition gap width is equal to the second gap width at a bottom portion of the transition gap (See fig 15).
Regarding claim 8.
The combination of Magro and Mullet teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Magro further discloses the second portion of each guide track is molded so that the second engagement portion (80b, fig 15) is moved inwards into the guide track so that the second engagement is closer to the rear portion of the guide track than the first engagement portion (46, fig 15) (the examiner notes that the method of forming an apparatus is not germaine to patentability of apparatus itself. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
MPEP 2113 [R-1] Product-by-Process Claims
PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE
MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE
IMPLIED BY THE STEPS).
Regarding claim 9.
The combination of Magro and Mullet teaches all limitations of claim 8.
Magro further discloses the second portion (at 80b, fig 15) of each guide track includes a body (80, fig 14), the body extending between the second engagement portion and an outer edge of each guide track bounding the doorway (See fig 9), the body further defining a body gap from the second engagement portion to the outer edge of each guide track so that the door panel may extend through from the doorway through the body gap and the second gap into the second guide channel (See fig 9).
Regarding claim 10.
The combination of Magro and Mullet teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Magro further discloses at least two inserts (see fig 15), wherein
one insert from the at least two inserts is inserted into each guide track to form the second portion of each guide track (22’ and 24’, fig 15), each insert having a second engagement portion positioned closer to the rear portion of the guide track than the first engagement portion (See fig 15).
Regarding claim 11.
The combination of Magro and Mullet teaches all limitations of claim 10.
Magro further discloses each insert includes a body (80, as in fig 9) which fills the guide channel between the first engagement portion and the second engagement portion (See fig 9), the body further defining an insert gap so that the door panel may extend through from the doorway through the insert gap and the second gap into the second guide channel (See fig 9).
Regarding claim 12.
The combination of Magro and Mullet teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Magro further discloses each side column further comprises a guide track retainer (50, fig 9) mounted to each guide track (including elements 52 and 54 in fig 9), each guide track retainer being made from a different material (Thicker stock, see fig 9) than each guide track, wherein the material of each guide track is more flexible than the material of each guide track retainer (The thinner material of the track material is more likely to bend than the thicker stock of the retainer. See fig 9).
Regarding claim 13.
The combination of Magro and Mullet teaches all limitations of claim 12.
Magro further discloses each guide track retainer (50, fig 9) extends a first distance (See annotated fig 9) across the first portion of an associated guide track of said guide tracks and a second distance (See annotated fig 9) across the second portion of the associated guide track of said guide tracks, wherein the first distance is different than the second distance (See annotated fig 9).
PNG
media_image5.png
676
704
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14.
The combination of Magro and Mullet teaches all limitations of claim 12.
Magro further discloses each guide track retainer (50, fig 9) extends across the second portion (at 80 as in fig 9) of an associated guide track a distance that is at least equal to the second depth (See fig 9).
Regarding claim 15.
The combination of Magro and Mullet teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Magro further discloses the first portion of each guide track has a first flexibility and the second portion of each guide track has a second flexibility, wherein the first flexibility is more flexible than the second flexibility (The addition of material at 80 as shown in fig 14 would necessarily increase the stiffness of the second portion, if only slightly, due to the added material).
Regarding claim 16.
The combination of Magro and Mullet teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Magro further discloses the first engagement portion has a different flexibility than the second engagement portion (The addition of material at 80 as shown in fig 14 would necessarily increase the stiffness of the second portion, if only slightly, due to the added material).
Regarding claim 17.
Magro discloses a door assembly (10, fig 1) (Examiner notes that, unless otherwise noted, the embodiment of fig 15 is relied upon. However, other figures may be referred to for illustration purposes.) comprising:
a door panel (26, fig 1) fixed to a drum (at 20, fig 1), the door panel winding onto and unwinding from the drum to open (as in fig 1) and close (as in fig 2) a doorway (12, fig 1);
a first side column (22’, fig 15) positioned proximate a first side of the doorway and a second side column (24’, fig 15) positioned proximate a second side of the doorway (See fig 15), the first side column and the second side column each comprising a guide track (40, fig 9) and each guide track comprising a first portion (46, fig 14) arranged vertically above a second portion (80, fig 14) relative to a lower boundary the doorway (See fig 15, compare with fig 1), wherein
the first portion of each guide track defines a first guide channel having a first depth (See annotated fig 15) extending from a rear portion of each guide track to a first engagement portion (See annotated fig 15) of each guide track, the first engagement portion of each guide track further defining a first gap having a first gap width (see annotated fig 9) so that the door panel (at 48, fig 9) may extend from the doorway through the first gap (see annotated fig 9) into the first guide channel, the first engagement portion bounding a side of the first guide channel and setting the first depth and first gap width continuously (See annotated fig 15) along a majority of the guide track from a top portion of the guide track to the second portion of the guide track (See annotated fig 15), or a transition portion (80a, fig 15) of the guide track, located beneath the first portion of the guide track; and
the second portion of each guide track defining a second guide channel having a second depth (See annotated fig 15) extending from the rear portion of the guide track to a second engagement portion (80b, fig 15) of each guide track, the second engagement portion of each guide track further defining a second gap having a second gap width (see annotated fig 9) so that the door panel may extend from the doorway through the second gap into the second guide channel (See fig 11), the second engagement portion bounding a side of the second guide channel (See annotated fig 15) and defining the second gap (See annotated fig 9) continuously (See annotated fig 15) from the first portion of the guide track or the transition portion (80a, fig 15) of the guide track to proximate a lower boundary of the doorway S, fig 15), wherein the first gap width and the second gap width extend perpendicular to the first depth and the second depth, respectively (See annotated fig 9),
the second depth is less than the first depth (See annotated fig 15)
Magro does not disclose the second gap width is less than the first gap width.
However, Mullet teaches the second gap width is less than the first gap width (See annotated fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Magro with the gap widths of Mullet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of providing a more secure lock-up at a closed position.
PNG
media_image1.png
690
966
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
716
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
698
710
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office Action of 07/17/2025 overlooks the requirement of claims 1 and 17 that the first portion extends continuously from a top portion of guide track to either a transition or lower portion. This is not persuasive, as Magro discloses the claimed continuity. Attention is drawn to annotated fig 15 of Magro above, and annotated fig 14 of Magro below.
Applicant argues that Magro fails to disclose the first and second gap widths run continuously along the first and second portions, respectively. This is not persuasive, as Magro discloses a continuous first portion (See annotated fig 15) that has a continuous gap (above 80 in fig 14) (See annotated fig 9) and a continuous second portion (at 80b in fig 14) that has a continuous gap (See annotated fig 9).
Applicant argues that the first gap and second gap taught by Mullet are not positioned above and below each other. This is not persuasive. See annotated fig 2 of Mullet below.
Applicant argues that removing all but the lowermost jamb bracket of Mullet destroys the invention of Mullet regardless of the teachings of Magro. This is not persuasive, as this is not the rejection set forth. The rejection sets forth that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Magro with different first and second gap widths as taught by Mullet. The assembly of Magro would continue to function as designed with a more secure lock up at rest in a closed position due to the differences in geometry of the respective gap widths taught by Mullet.
PNG
media_image6.png
658
860
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
712
866
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 JOHN W HANES JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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.
/J.W.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634