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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/16/2026 has been entered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In the instant case, the abstract exceeds 150 words, repeats information given in the title, contains the implied phrase “The invention relates to”, and the legal phraseology “said door leaf”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 introduces and refers to a “receptable”. Claims 4, 11, and 21 refer to “the receptacle”. Applicant should pick one spelling to maintain consistent terminology throughout. It is recommended to use “receptacle”, as “receptable” is not commonly used in modern English.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spanish document 2 542 108 – Andres.
Regarding claim 1.
Andres discloses a roller door (fig 4) comprising:
a door leaf (fig 3) which is movable between an open position, in which it at least partially uncovers a wall opening, and a closed position, in which it at least partially closes the wall opening (See first paragraph of attached machine translation; The invention relates to a connecting profile of blind slats, of particular application to the formation of an articulated blind board, preferably a blind that can be wound on a tree or winding drum to close an opening, especially a building opening), said door leaf having a plurality of door leaf segments (1, fig 1) arranged one behind the other in a direction of movement of the door leaf (See figs 2 and 4), wherein at least one stabilizing device (including elements 16 and 17 in fig 5) extends perpendicular to the direction of movement of the door leaf (See figs 3 and 4), the at least one stabilizing device being arranged between two door leaf segments (See fig 4) formed, at least partially, from a flexible material (see machine translation appended to office action dated 04/30/2026; The connecting profile of blind slats is made of an elastomeric material), and mutually facing edge regions (3, fig 4) of said two door leaf segments are held on the stabilizing device (See fig 4), wherein at least one edge region of at least one of said two door leaf segments comprises a hook-shaped projection (4, fig 1) that is held in a floating manner (compare figs 4 and 5-6) on the stabilizing device such that the edge region of said at least one of said two door leaf segments is movable with respect to the stabilizing device at least in the direction of movement of the door leaf (compare figs 4 and 5-6);
wherein the stabilizing device (including elements 16 and 17 in 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 machine translation appended to office action dated 04/30/2026; at least two components (16 and 17), …The union between both components can be carried out, for example, by mechanical sliding and guidance.), wherein a receptable (12, fig 5) configured to hold the hook-shaped projection of the edge region is formed by attaching the second stabilizing profile part to the first stabilizing profile part (See fig 5), wherein the receptable limits the relative movement of the at least one floatingly held edge region provided with the hook-shaped projection with respect to the stabilizing device (See fig 4).
Regarding claim 4.
Andres discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Andres further discloses the receptacle (12, fig 5) has a mouth (13, fig 5), which is passed through by a transition region (2, fig 1) of at least one segment between the hook-like shaped projection (4, fig 1) and a region of the at least one segment (7, fig 1), which lies exposed outside the stabilizing device (See fig 5), and
wherein a width of the mouth, in the thickness direction, is greater than a thickness of the transition region in the thickness direction, and less than dimensions of the hook-like shaped projection in the thickness direction (See fig 5), and
wherein the receptacle is delimited on its side opposite the mouth by a bottom (See fig 5), wherein the distance between the mouth and the bottom in the direction of movement of the door leaf is greater than a length of the hook-like shaped projection of the floating edge region in the direction of movement of the door leaf (See fig 5).
Regarding claim 5.
Andres discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Andres further discloses the at least one hook-shaped projection (4, fig 1) is a bent portion (at least the face of 4 is bent with respect to a major axis of the leaf segment 1) of the edge region (3, fig 1) that is bent with respect to a bending axis running parallel to the stabilizing device (See fig 4).
Regarding claim 7.
Andres discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Andres further discloses at least one hook-shaped projection (4, fig 1) is formed by a hook-shaped projection element held on an edge region (3, fig 1) of at least one door leaf segment (1, fig 1).
Regarding claim 12.
Andres discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Andres further discloses the stabilizing device 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 of the two receptacles, in the closed position (as in fig 5), is delimited by two receiving parts (16 and 17, fig 5) detachably connected to one another (see machine translation appended to office action dated 04/30/2026; at least two components (16 and 17), …The union between both components can be carried out, for example, by mechanical sliding and guidance.).
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) 9, 11, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andres in view of PG Pub. US 2015/0368965 A1 – Meyere et al., hereinafter Meyere.
Regarding claim 9.
Andres discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Andres further discloses at least one segment (1, fig 1) having a floatingly held (See fig 4) hook-shaped projection (4, fig 1) of the edge region (3, fig 1).
Andres does not disclose at least one plate which is formed at least in sections from polycarbonate.
However, Meyere teaches 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 door of 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.
Andres discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Andres does not disclose a sealing element between the hook-shaped projection and a mouth in the receptacle.
However, Meyere teaches a sealing element (14, fig 18) between the hook- shaped 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 door of 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.
Andres discloses all limitations of claim 5.
Andres does not disclose 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, 20-22, 24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andres in view of US Pat. 6,123,139 – Kalempa et al., hereinafter Kalempa.
Regarding claim 10.
Andres discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Andres does not disclose joint assemblies for guiding the door leaf movement, which are positioned in the region of lateral edges of the door leaf, which extend at least in sections, in the closed position, in the direction of gravity, wherein 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, wherein the door leaf is connected with the joint assemblies by means of the stabilizing devices.
However, Kalempa teaches joint assemblies (8, fig 1) for guiding the door leaf movement (along tracks 4, fig 1), which are positioned in the region of lateral edges of the door leaf (See fig 1), which extend at least in sections (at 10, fig 1), in the closed position, in the direction of gravity, wherein each of the joint assemblies has a plurality of joint members (10, fig 1), which are hingedly connected (See figs 1 and 2) to one another with respect to joint axes (See hinge pin 18 in fig 2), which are perpendicular to the direction of movement or the lateral edges of the door leaf (See fig 1), wherein the door leaf is connected with the joint assemblies by means of the stabilizing devices (6, 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 Andres 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 reducing the sliding friction of the door panel when opening or closing the door.
Regarding claim 20.
The combination of Andres and Kalempa teaches all limitations of claim 10.
The combination, in Kalempa, further teaches at least one stabilizing device (6, fig 1) extends approximately parallel to a joint axis (See hinge pin 18 in fig 2) and is connected along this joint axis to first and second joint assemblies that are respectively provided on opposite lateral door leaf edges (See fig 1).
Regarding claim 21.
The combination of Andres and Kalempa teaches all limitations of claim 10.
Andres further discloses the receptacle (12, fig 5) has a mouth (13, fig 5), which is passed through by a transition region (2, fig 1) of at least one segment (1, fig 1) between the hook-shaped projection (4, fig 1) and a region (7, fig 1) of the at least one segment, which lies exposed outside the additional stabilizing device (See fig 5).
Andres does not disclose an additional stabilizing device extending parallel to a joint axis is connected to the joint assemblies.
Kalempa, further teaches an additional stabilizing device (6, fig 1) extending parallel to a joint axis (See hinge pin 18 in fig 2) is connected to the joint assemblies (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 modify the combination of Andres and Kalempa with the additional stabilizing device 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 strengthening the door.
Regarding claim 22.
The combination of Andres and Kalempa teaches all limitations of claim 21.
The combination, in Kalempa, further teaches the additional stabilizing device (6, fig 1) is connected only (See fig 2) to the joint assemblies (8, fig 1).
Also, Andres further discloses 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).
Regarding claim 24.
Andres discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Andres 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, Kalempa teaches at least one reinforcement strip (9, fig 2) which extends parallel (see fig 2) to the lateral edge of the door leaf (at 21 in fig 2) and is fastened to the door leaf (See fig 2).
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 Andres with the reinforcement strip 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 strengthening the lateral edge of the door leaf.
Regarding claim 26.
Andres discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Andres does not disclose at least one joint member has on its side facing away from the door leaf a guide arrangement which interacts with a guide track that guides the door leaf movement, wherein the guide arrangement includes at least one guide roller that is rotatably held with respect to a roller axis running parallel to the joint axes, and wherein the guide roller is received in a guide track when the door leaf is in the open position.
However, Kalempa teaches at least one joint member (10, fig 1) has on its side facing away from the door leaf (See fig 1) a guide arrangement (including 26, fig 2) which interacts with a guide track (4, fig 1) that guides the door leaf movement, wherein the guide arrangement includes at least one guide roller (26, fig 2) that is rotatably held with respect to a roller axis (See hinge pin 18 in fig 2) running parallel to the joint axes (See hinge pin 18 in fig 2), and wherein the guide roller is received in a guide track when the door leaf is in the open position (See fig 8).
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 Andres with the guide roller arrangement 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 reducing the sliding friction of the door panel when opening or closing the door.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Andres and Kalempa as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Meyere.
Regarding claim 23.
The combination of Andres and Kalempa teaches all limitations of claim 21.
The combination, in Kalempa, further teaches the additional stabilizing device (6, fig 1) is connected only (See fig 2) to the joint assemblies (8, fig 1).
The combination does not teach 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 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.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andres in view of US Pat. 6,655,443 – Mochizuki et al., hereinafter Mochizuki.
Regarding claim 28.
Andres discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Andres does not disclose a sealing arrangement is associated with at least one joint member of a joint assembly, wherein, in the closed position, the sealing arrangement can be placed on an inner boundary surface of the door leaf.
However, Mochizuki teaches 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).
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 Andres with the guide roller arrangement 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 reducing the sliding friction of the door panel when opening or closing 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.
Inasmuch as applicant’s arguments against the Andres reference are applicable, they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Andres does not teach a receptacle formed by assembling multiple stabilizing profile parts. This is not persuasive, as Andres discloses a receptacle (12), formed by assembling multiple stabilizing profile parts (16 and 17). Applicant further argues that Andres does not describe any operational relative movement between the slats and the connector. This is not persuasive, as the machine translation appended to office action dated 04/30/2026 states
“The connecting profile of blind slats is made of an elastomeric material, single piece is preferred and shows an elastic behavior, so that it can suffer reversible deformations when subjected to pressure; thus its vertical soul is flexed allowing the curving of the blind panel when it is being rolled or unwound on the winding drum or, the lateral extensions or arms are temporarily deformed by the weight of the blind when the blind board is completely unwound and supported against 15 the floor, to recover its original shape when the blind board is pulled. In a certain position of use, in coincidence with the unrolled blind and the fully extended blind panel and against the floor, the weight of the board itself and the pressure exerted by the slats on the contact surfaces in the distal and proximal portions of the lateral arms of the connector profile 20 causes its temporary deformation as long as the pressure lasts, causing a tight seal between the slats that absorb the noise, especially when the slats of the blind are of a metallic nature or at least one of the edges of the slat is metallic . The vertical souls of the connecting profiles remain hidden between adjacent slats, since they are contained between the recesses of each 25 pairs of adjacent slats and the openings they include are therefore also hidden.
In a position for picking up the shutter board to be wound on the winding drum, the slats are kept separated from each other and the 30 beams, upper and lower, of the connecting profiles that chain them respectively directed against the corresponding grooves, lower of the upper and upper slat of the lower slat, which prevent its exit and against those that close to dampen the noise in the event that the connector profile lacks air and light passage openings. In another case, the openings of the connector profiles 35, previously hidden between the neighboring profiles are now visible and
They allow the passage of air and light. Thus, the shutter board can be picked up on the winding drum, since the vertical souls of the connecting profiles between the slats are flexed allowing the curving of the blind board portion to be rolled.”
See also figs 4 and 5-6. Applicant’s assertion that “there is therefore no disclosure of a floating mounting or of any relative movement of the slat edge region with respect to the connector profile in the direction of movement of the door leaf” is therefore not persuasive. Applicant further argues that “Andres does not disclose a hook-shaped projection formed on the edge region of a slat or segment, nor a receptacle configured to receive such a projection.” This is not persuasive, as the element denoted by reference character 4 in fig 1 is seen to present a recursive surface, meeting the definition of “hook-shaped”, also, as seen in fig 5, elements 16 and 17 are joined to create a receptacle 12 for the receipt of the hook-shaped portion 12. Applicant’s argument regarding constrained retention vs. controlled relative displacement has been answered above.
Applicant is reminded that claim terms are given a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the applicant’s disclosure. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that as Andres teaches a deformable connector profile, in conjunction with rigid slats, that the design principle is fundamentally different from the claimed invention, which relies on flexible door leaf segments and a floating mounting of the hook-shaped projection allowing relative movement within a receptacle. This is not persuasive, as the connector profile of Andres is a segment (part) of a door leaf, and the slats of Andres are devices which provide stability, the door of Andres meets the limitations of independent claim 1, as currently claimed.
Conclusion
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