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 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites in part “wherein at least one stabilizing device extending perpendicular to the direction of movement of the door leaf”. This is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 1 recites in part “the at least one floatingly held a hook-like projection”. This is grammatically incorrect.
In claim 5, “at least one hook-like projection” should be “the at least one hook-like projection”.
Claim 22 recites in part “the additional stabilizing device connected only to the joint assemblies has”. This is grammatically incorrect.
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, 4-5, 7, 9-12, 20-24, 26, 28, and 34 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.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 21, the phrase "hook-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "hook-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 10, 12, 20, 22-24, 26, and 34 are at least rejected for depending from rejected claim 1. Dependent claims contain all limitations of the claims from which they depend, and therefore inherit their clarity issues.
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, 4, 5, 7, 12, 24, 26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. 6,655,443 – Mochizuki et al., hereinafter Mochizuki in view of Spanish document 2 542 108 – Andres.
Regarding claim 1.
Mochizuki discloses a roller door (10, fig 11; Examiner notes that the embodiment of figs 11 and 12 is relied upon. However, other figures may be referred to for illustration purposes) comprising:
a door leaf (at 10, fig 11) which is movable (See arrows in figs 1 and 2) between an open position, in which it at least partially uncovers a wall opening (Between uprights 41 in fig 1), and a closed position (as in fig 1), in which it at least partially closes the wall opening (See fig 1), said door leaf having a plurality of door leaf segments (1, fig 11) arranged one behind the other in a direction of movement of the door leaf (as in fig 2), wherein at least one stabilizing device (2, fig 11) extending perpendicular to the direction of movement of the door leaf (See, for example, fig 2), the at least one stabilizing device arranged between two door leaf segments (See fig 11), and mutually facing edge regions (as at 14 in fig 3) of the door leaf segments are held on the stabilizing device (See fig 3), wherein at least one edge region of at least one segment comprises a hook-like member (as at 13 and 14 in fig 3; see also fig 12) that is held in a floating manner on the stabilizing device such that the edge region is movable with respect to the stabilizing device at least in the direction of movement of the door leaf (See spaces at 3, 30 in figs 3 and 4);
wherein the roller door further comprises a constraining arrangement (3, as in fig 3), which limits the relative movement (See figs 3 and 4) of the at least one floatingly held a hook-like projection (14, fig 3) of the edge region with respect to the stabilizing device (2, fig 12),
Mochizuki does not disclose wherein the stabilizing device comprises a first stabilizing profile part and a second stabilizing profile part detachably connected to one another, wherein a receptable configured to hold the hook-like projection of the edge region is formed by attaching the second stabilizing profile part to the first stabilizing profile part.
However, Andres teaches wherein the stabilizing device (including 16 and 17, fig 5) comprises a first stabilizing profile part (16, FIG 5) and a second stabilizing profile part (17, FIG 5) detachably connected to one another (See fig 5), wherein a receptable (12, fig 5) configured to hold the hook-like projection (See fig 5) of the edge region is formed by attaching the second stabilizing profile part to the first stabilizing profile part (See fig 5).
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 door of Mochizuki with the multi-part stabilizing device of Andres. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of providing simplified assembly of the door leaf.
Regarding claim 4.
The combination of Mochizuki and Andres teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Mochizuki further discloses the receptacle (3, fig 3) has a mouth (between 30 and 31, fig 3) which is passed through by a transition region (13, fig 12) of at least one segment between the hook-like projection (14, fig 3, Mochizuki) and a region of the at least one segment, which lies exposed outside the stabilizing device (See at 1, fig 3), and
wherein a width of the mouth, in the thickness direction (between 30 and 31, fig 3), is greater than a thickness of the transition region (13, fig 12) in the thickness direction, and less than dimensions of the hook-like projection (14, fig 3) in the thickness direction; and
wherein the receptacle is delimited on its side opposite the mouth by a bottom (at 3, fig 3), wherein the distance between the mouth (between 30 and 31, fig 3) and the bottom in the direction of movement of the door leaf is greater than a length of the hook-like projection of the floating edge region in the direction of movement of the door leaf (See figs 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 5.
The combination of Mochizuki and Andres teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The applied embodiment of Mochizuki does not disclose at least one hook-like projection is a bent portion of the edge region that is bent with respect to a bending axis running parallel to the stabilizing device.
However, another embodiment of Mochizuki teaches at least one hook-like projection (14, fig 6) is a bent portion (19, fig 6) of the edge region that is bent with respect to a bending axis running parallel to the stabilizing device (See fig 6).
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 combination of Mochizuki and Andres with the bent portion of the alternative embodiment of Mochizuki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing the use of alternate manufacturing methods.
Regarding claim 7.
The combination of Mochizuki and Andres teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Mochizuki further discloses at least one hook-like projection (14, fig 3) is formed by a hook-like projection element (14, fig 3) held on an edge region of at least one door leaf segment (1, fig 3).
Regarding claim 12.
The combination of Mochizuki and Andres teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination, in Andres, further teaches the stabilizing device (including 16 and 17, fig 5) has two receptacles (12, fig 5), which are spaced from one another in the direction of movement of the door leaf (See fig 5), wherein an upper receptacle (12, fig 5) of the two receptacles, in the closed position, is delimited by two receiving parts (16 and 17, fig 5) detachably connected to one another (See fig 5).
Regarding claim 24.
The combination of Mochizuki and Andres teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The applied embodiment of Mochizuki does not disclose at least one reinforcement strip which extends parallel to the lateral edge of the door leaf and is fastened to the door leaf.
However, another embodiment of Mochizuki teaches at least one reinforcement strip which extends parallel to the lateral edge of the door leaf and is fastened to the door leaf.
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 combination of Mochizuki and Andres with the reinforcement strip of the alternative embodiment of Mochizuki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing the use of alternate manufacturing methods.
Regarding claim 26.
The combination of Mochizuki and Andres teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Mochizuki further discloses at least one joint member (7, fig 12) has on its side facing away from the door leaf a guide arrangement (including 71, fig 12) which interacts with a guide track that guides the door leaf movement (Column 10, lines 14-15; Therefore, the shutter panel 10 smoothly slides along the guide grooves 40 by the rotation motion of the roller 7.), wherein the guide arrangement includes at least one guide roller (71, fig 12) that is rotatably held with respect to a roller axis running parallel to the joint axes (See fig 12), and wherein the guide roller is received in a guide track when the door leaf is in the open position (Column 10, lines 14-15; Therefore, the shutter panel 10 smoothly slides along the guide grooves 40 by the rotation motion of the roller 7.).
Regarding claim 28.
The combination of Mochizuki and Andres teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Mochizuki further discloses a sealing arrangement (6, fig 12) is associated with at least one joint member of a joint assembly (7, fig 12), wherein, in the closed position, the sealing arrangement can be placed on an inner boundary surface of the door leaf (See fig 13).
Claim(s) 9, 11, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mochizuki and Andres as applied above, and further in view of PG Pub. US 2015/0368965 A1 – Meyere et al., hereinafter Meyere.
Regarding claim 9.
The combination of Mochizuki and Andres teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination does not teach at least one segment having a floatingly held hook-like projection of the edge region has at least one plate which is formed at least in sections from polycarbonate.
However, Meyere teaches at least one segment having a floatingly held hook-like projection of the edge region has at least one plate which is formed at least in sections from polycarbonate (Paragraph [0096]; They may for example be of polycarbonate).
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 combination of Mochizuki and Andres with the polycarbonate material of Meyere. 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 shatter resistant transparent shutter.
Regarding claim 11.
The combination of Mochizuki and Andres teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination does not teach a sealing element between the hook-like projection and a mouth in the receptacle.
However, Meyere teaches a sealing element (14, fig 18) between the hook-like projection and a mouth in the receptacle (See fig 18).
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 combination of Mochizuki and Andres with the sealing element of Meyere. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of providing an improved seal between the panels and stabilizing devices.
Regarding claim 34.
The combination of Mochizuki and Andres teaches all limitations of claim 5.
The combination does not teach a damping element or a sealing element provided between the bent portion of the edge region and a mouth in the receptacle which is passed through by a transition region of at least one segment between the bent portion of the edge region and a region of the at least one segment, which lies exposed outside the stabilizing device.
However, Meyere teaches a damping element or a sealing element (14, fig 3) provided between the bent portion of the edge region (12, fig 5) and a mouth in the receptacle (See fig 6) which is passed through by a transition region (at 13, fig 5) of at least one segment between the bent portion of the edge region and a region of the at least one segment, which lies exposed outside the stabilizing device (at 3, fig 5).
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 combination of Mochizuki and Andres with the sealing element of Meyere. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of providing an improved seal between the panels and stabilizing devices.
Claim(s) 10, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mochizuki and Andres, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of US Pat. 6,123,139 – Kalempa et al., hereinafter Kalempa.
Regarding claim 10.
The combination of Mochizuki and Andres teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Mochizuki further discloses joint assemblies (7, fig 12) for guiding the door leaf movement (Column 10, lines 24-25; Therefore, the shutter panel 10 smoothly slides along the guide grooves 40 by the rotation motion of the roller 7.), which are positioned in the region of lateral edges of the door leaf (See fig 11), which extend at least in sections, in the closed position, in the direction of gravity (Examiner notes that solids extend in all three physical dimensions), wherein the door leaf is connected with the joint assemblies by means of the stabilizing devices (See fig 11).
Mochizuki does not disclose each of the joint assemblies has a plurality of joint members, which are hingedly connected to one another with respect to joint axes, which are perpendicular to the direction of movement or the lateral edges of the door leaf,
However, Kalempa teaches each of the joint assemblies (8, fig 1) has a plurality of joint members (10, fig 1), which are hingedly connected to one another with respect to joint axes (See fig 1), which are perpendicular to the direction of movement or the lateral edges of the door leaf (See fig 1).
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 further modify the door of Mochizuki with the hinged connection joint members of Kalempa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of increasing the edge strength of the door panel.
Regarding claim 20.
The combination of Mochizuki, Andres, and Kalempa teaches all limitations of claim 10.
Mochizuki further discloses at least one stabilizing device (2, fig 11) extends approximately parallel to a joint axis (See at 70 in figs 12 and 13) and is connected along this joint axis to first (7, fig 11) and second joint assemblies (7, fig 11) that are respectively provided on opposite lateral door leaf edges (See fig 11).
Regarding claim 21.
The combination of Mochizuki, Andres, and Kalempa teaches all limitations of claim 10.
Mochizuki further discloses an additional stabilizing device (See another one of 2, fig 11) extending parallel to a joint axis is connected to the joint assemblies (See fig 11); and
wherein the receptacle (3, fig 3) has a mouth (between 30 and 31, fig 3), which is passed through by a transition region (13, fig 3) of at least one segment between the hook-like projection (14, fig 3) and a region of the at least one segment, which lies exposed outside the additional stabilizing device (at 1, fig 3).
Regarding claim 22.
The combination of Mochizuki, Andres, and Kalempa teaches all limitations of claim 21.
Mochizuki further discloses the additional stabilizing device (2, fig 11) connected only to the joint assemblies (See fig 12).
Mochizuki does not disclose the additional stabilizing device has, on its side facing away from the at least one segment, a sealing arrangement which can be placed against a lintel of the wall opening.
However, Andres teaches the additional stabilizing device (11’, fig 4) has, on its side (16, fig 4) facing away from the at least one segment, a sealing arrangement (See face of 16 and seal at top of track in fig 4) which can be placed against a lintel of the wall opening (See fig 4).
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 further modify the combination of Mochizuki, Andres, and Kalempa with the sealing arrangement of Andres. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of improving the sealing of the door.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mochizuki, Andres, and Kalempa as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Meyere.
Regarding claim 23.
The combination of Mochizuki, Andres, and Kalempa teaches all limitations of claim 21.
Mochizuki further discloses the additional stabilizing device (2, fig 11) connected only to the joint assemblies (See fig 12).
Mochizuki does not disclose the additional stabilizing device has on its side facing the at least one segment at least one sealing strip, which extends approximately parallel to the joint axes, preferably over substantially the entire width of the door and which can be placed on the at least one segment.
However, Meyere teaches the additional stabilizing device has on its side facing the at least one segment at least one sealing strip (14, fig 3), which extends approximately parallel to the joint axes (See fig 3), preferably over substantially the entire width of the door (See fig 3) and which can be placed on the at least one segment (See 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 combination of Mochizuki, Andres, and Kalempa with the sealing strip of Meyere. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of improving the sealing of the door.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
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
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights