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 03/09/2026 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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG Pub. US 2008/0196842 A1 – Schoeren in view of US Pat. 6,574,832 – Boerger et al., hereinafter Boerger.
Regarding claim 1.
Schoeren discloses a door system (fig 1) comprising:
a panel (made up of laths, 1, fig 1);
a track (2, fig 5) including a first track wall (See annotated fig 5) and a second track wall (See annotated fig 5) opposite the first track wall, the first and second track walls defining a channel therebetween (See annotated fig 5), a lateral edge of the panel to move along the channel as the panel moves between a closed position and an open position (see fig 1);
a first refeed block having a first planar surface (See annotated fig 5) and a second planar surface (Extending coplanarly with the first planar surface. See annotated fig 5), the first planar surface to be aligned with and an extension of the first track wall (See annotated fig 5), the first planar surface to extend a first vertical distance above the first track wall (See annotated fig 5); and
a second refeed block having a third planar surface and a fourth planar surface (See annotated fig 5), the third planar surface to be aligned with and an extension of the second track wall (See annotated fig 5), the fourth planar surface to slant away from the third planar surface (See annotated fig 5), the third planar surface to extend a second vertical distance above the second track wall (See annotated fig 5), the fourth planar surface to extend a second horizontal distance from the third planar surface (See annotated fig 5), the first vertical distance greater than the second vertical distance (See annotated fig 5), the first horizontal distance less than the second horizontal distance (The first horizontal distance of zero being less than the illustrated second horizontal distance. See annotated fig 5).
Schoeren does not disclose the second planar surface to slant away from the first planar surface, the second planar surface to extend a first horizontal distance from the first planar surface,
the first vertical distance greater than a combined vertical height of both the third and fourth planar surfaces.
However, Boerger teaches the second planar surface (See annotated fig 10) to slant away from the first planar surface (See annotated fig 10), the second planar surface to extend a first horizontal distance from the first planar surface (See annotated fig 10),
the first vertical distance (See annotated fig 10) greater than a combined vertical height of both the third and fourth planar surfaces (See annotated fig 10).
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 system of Schoeren with the planar surface geometries of Boerger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of smoothing the infeed of the shutter into the space between the refeed blocks.
PNG
media_image1.png
702
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
696
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2.
The combination of Schoeren and Boerger teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Schoeren further discloses the first planar surface is to be substantially flush with an inner surface of the first track wall (See fig 5), and the third planar surface is to be substantially flush with an inner surface of the second track wall (See fig 5).
Claim(s) 5, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schoeren and Boerger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 1 882 806 A1 – Gouthiere et al., hereinafter Gouthiere.
Regarding claim 5.
The combination of Schoeren and Boerger teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Schoeren does not disclose the first refeed block includes a recessed surface that is inset relative to the first planar surface, a distance between the recessed surface and the first planar surface corresponding to a thickness of the first track wall.
However, Gouthiere teaches the first refeed block (11a, fig 3) includes a recessed surface (See annotated fig 3) that is inset relative to the first channel surface, a distance between the recessed surface and the first channel surface corresponding (related to) to a thickness of the first track wall (See fig 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
217
554
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 system of Schoeren with the recessed surface of Gouthiere. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of providing for positive location of the refeed block with respect to the track.
Regarding claim 8.
The combination of Schoeren and Boerger teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Schoeren does not disclose the second refeed block includes a bottom edge that is to protrude outward from an outer surface of the second track wall, the bottom edge of the second refeed block being rounded.
However, Gouthiere teaches the second refeed block (11b, fig 3) includes a bottom edge that is to protrude outward from an outer surface of the second track wall, the bottom edge of the second refeed block being rounded (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 further modify the system of Schoeren with the rounded edge of Gouthiere. 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 possibility of snagging things in the transition gap between the blocks and track.
PNG
media_image4.png
266
602
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9.
The combination of Schoeren and Boerger teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Schoeren does not explicitly disclose a side plate, the first and second refeed blocks to be mounted to the side plate via fasteners.
However, Gouthiere teaches a side plate (See at 9, fig 3), the first and second refeed blocks (11a and b, see fig 3) to be mounted to the side plate via fasteners (10 and 13, 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 system of Schoeren with the side plate and fasteners of Gouthiere. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of provide for ease of assembly.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schoeren and Boerger as applied above, and in further view of PG Pub. US 2021/0071476 A1 – Beggs et al., hereinafter Beggs.
Regarding claim 6.
The combination of Schoeren and Boerger teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Schoeren does not disclose the first refeed block is to house a photo-eye sensor to emit a beam of light toward the second refeed block.
However, Beggs teaches the first refeed block (124a, fig 12) is to house a photo-eye sensor (1204, fig 12) to emit a beam of light (1210, fig 12) toward the second refeed block (124b, fig 12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Schoeren, Gouthiere, and Beggs with the photo eye of Beggs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to alert an operator of a door malfunction.
Regarding claim 7.
The combination of Schoeren, Boerger, and Beggs teaches all limitations of claim 6.
Schoeren does not disclose the first refeed block includes a groove extending along a rear surface facing away from the second refeed block, the groove dimensioned to provide space for wiring for the photo-eye sensor.
However, Beggs further teaches the first refeed block (124a, fig 13) includes a groove (an empty narrow space) extending along a rear surface facing away from (See fig 13) the second refeed block (124a, fig 13), the groove dimensioned to provide space for wiring (1306, fig 13) for the photo-eye sensor.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Schoeren, Boerger, and Beggs with the groove dimensioned for wiring as suggested by Beggs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide wire routing to power the photo eye of the combination.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schoeren, Boerger, and Gouthiere as applied above, and in further view of PG Pub. US 2019/0178032 A1 – McNabb et al., hereinafter McNabb.
Regarding claim 10.
The combination of Schoeren, Boerger, and Gouthiere teaches all limitations of claim 9.
The combination does not teach the first and second refeed blocks including at least one of countersunk holes or counterbored holes for the fasteners so that the fasteners do not protrude from an outer surface of the first and second refeed blocks.
However, McNabb teaches the first and second refeed blocks (186, figs 9E and 10E, respectively) including at least one of countersunk holes or counterbored holes (199A, figs 9E and 10E) for the fasteners so that the fasteners do not protrude from an outer surface of the first and second refeed blocks.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schoeren and Gouthiere with the countersunk holes of McNabb. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid binding of the panel in the channel.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeren in view of PG Pub. US 2003/0173040 A1 – Court et al., hereinafter Court.
Regarding claim 12.
Schoeren discloses a door system (fig 1) comprising:
a panel (made up of laths, 1, fig 1) including an outer surface (at 20 in fig 2) and an inner surface (below 8 in fig 2) opposite the outer surface (See fig 2), the outer surface to extend across and face away from a doorway when the panel is in a closed position (See fig 2);
a track (2, fig 5) to guide movement of the panel between the closed position and an open position (See fig 1);
the track defining a channel (at 11, fig 3), a lateral edge of the panel to move along the channel (See fig 3) as the panel moves between the closed position (as in fig 2) and the open position (as in fig 1);
a first portion (12, fig 3) of a guide member to be mounted on the panel (see fig 3), the first portion to align with an opening (18, fig 3) in the track along which the panel moves such that a first part of the first portion is inside the channel when the panel is in the closed position and a second part (at 7, fig 4) of the first portion is outside the channel;
a second portion (including 15, fig 3) of the guide member to be mounted on the outer surface of the panel, the second portion to be entirely inside the channel when the panel is in the closed position, the second portion being distinct and separate from the first portion (See fig 3);
a first refeed block having a first planar surface (See annotated fig 5), the first planar surface adjacent to a first planar surface of the track (See annotated fig 5); and
a second refeed block having a second planar surface (See annotated fig 5), the second planar surface adjacent a second planar surface of the track (See annotated fig 5), the first and second refeed blocks to face one another on opposite sides of the track such that the panel is to extend between the first planar surface of the first refeed block and the second planar surface of the second refeed block when the panel is in the closed position (See fig 5).
Schoeren does not disclose a first portion of a guide member to be mounted on the outer surface of the panel.
However, Court teaches a first portion of a guide member to be mounted on the outer surface of the panel (Paragraph [0038]; The plurality of stiffener bars 208 can be fixed on the exterior or interior of the flexible panel 112 for reinforcement.).
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 system of Schoeren with the mounting position of xxx. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of simplifying assembly of the system.
Regarding claim 13.
The combination of Schoeren and Court teaches all limitations of claim 12.
Schoeren further discloses the track includes a first wall and a second wall,
the first wall having a first main portion (See annotated fig 5) and a first end portion (See annotated fig 5) angled relative to the first main portion,
the second wall having a second main portion (See annotated fig 5) and a second end portion (See annotated fig 5) angled relative to the second main portion,
a third distance between the first and second refeed blocks corresponding to a fourth distance between the first and second main portions of the first and second walls (See annotated fig 5),
the first and second end portions angled toward one another to define a fifth distance (See annotated fig 5) therebetween corresponding to an opening in the track through which the panel extends when in the closed position, the fifth distance less than the third and fourth distances (See annotated fig 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
774
802
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14.
The combination of Schoeren and Court teaches all limitations of claim 13.
Schoeren further discloses upper ends of the first and second end portions are tapered relative to upper ends of the first and second main portions to define a V-shaped entry into the opening (See annotated fig 5).
Regarding claim 15.
The combination of Schoeren and Court teaches all limitations of claim 12.
Schoeren further discloses the first and second refeed blocks include upper surfaces that angle away from one another (See fig 5).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schoeren and Court, as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of US Pat. 10,794,116 – Kanuri.
Regarding claim 17.
The combination of Schoeren and Court teaches all limitations of claim 12.
Schoeren further discloses a bottom seal assembly, the bottom seal assembly including:
a tube (24, fig 2) to be carried by the panel (See fig 2).
Schoeren does not disclose a weighted tube to be carried by the panel; and
a loop seal to surround the weighted tube and a bottom edge of the panel.
However, Kanuri teaches a weighted tube (38, fig 3) to be carried by the panel (18, fig 3); and
a loop seal (31, fig 3) to surround the weighted tube and a bottom edge of the panel (See fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door system of Schoeren with the bottom seal assembly of Kanuri. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the sealing of the bottom of the door.
Claim(s) 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schoeren and Boerger, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of PG Pub US 2022/0195796 A1 – Zimmermann et al., hereinafter Zimmermann.
Regarding claim 57.
The combination of Schoeren and Boerger teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Schoeren does not explicitly disclose the first and second refeed blocks are distinct from one another and separately mountable adjacent to the track.
However, Zimmermann teaches the first (26, fig 1) and second (24, fig 1) refeed blocks are distinct from one another and separately mountable adjacent to the track (12, 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 system of Schoeren with the distinct and separately mountable refeed blocks of Zimmermann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of providing for ease of repair or replacement of broken refeed blocks.
Claim(s) 58, and 60-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeren in view of US Pat. 7,131,481 – Varley et al., hereinafter Varley.
Regarding claim 58.
Schoeren discloses a door system (fig 1) comprising:
a track (2, fig 5) including a first sidewall and a second sidewall (See annotated fig 5);
a first refeed block having a first planar surface (See annotated fig 5), the first planar surface to be positioned as a vertical extension of the first sidewall of the track (See annotated fig 5);
a second refeed block having a second planar surface (See annotated fig 5), the second planar surface to be positioned as a vertical extension of the second sidewall of the track (See annotated fig 5), the second planar surface shorter than the first planar surface (See annotated fig 5);
a panel (made up of laths 1, fig 1) to travel between the first and second sidewalls of the track and between the first and second planar surfaces of the first and second refeed blocks (See annotated fig 5).
Schoeren does not disclose a lateral retention tab to be attached to a first side of the panel facing the first sidewall, the lateral retention tab to be within the track when the panel is in a closed position, a thickness of the lateral retention tab changing at different points along a width of the lateral retention tab, the thickness measured in a direction perpendicular to the panel, the width measured in a horizontal direction extending between opposing first and second edges of the lateral retention tab, the second edge closer to an opening in the track through which the panel extends than the first edge is to the opening, the thickness being at a maximum at a point along the width that is closer to the second edge than the point is to the first edge, the lateral retention tab including a tab surface that is closer to the second edge than the point is to the second edge, the tab surface to contact the first sidewall of the track when the panel is dislodged from the track.
However, Varley teaches a lateral retention tab (at 100 in fig 13) to be attached to a first side of the panel (22, fig 13) facing the first sidewall (See fig 13), the lateral retention tab to be within the track when the panel is in a closed position (See fig 13), a thickness of the lateral retention tab changing at different points along a width of the lateral retention tab (Compare 100a, 100, and 100b, fig 13), the thickness measured in a direction perpendicular to the first side of the panel (See fig 13), the width measured in a horizontal direction extending between opposing first and second edges of the lateral retention tab (See annotated fig 13), the second edge closer to an opening in the track through which the panel extends than the first edge is to the opening, the thickness having a maximum thickness at a point along the width that is closer to the second edge than the point is to the first edge (See annotated fig 13), the thickness at the first edge being less than the maximum thickness, the lateral retention tab including a tab surface (100a, fig 13) that is closer to the second edge than the point is to the second edge (See annotated fig 13), the tab surface to contact the first sidewall of the track when the panel is dislodged from the track (As in fig 16. Although not shown, examiner notes that the tab surface at 100a would contact the sidewall upon dislodgement from the track, allowing the tab to slide out as shown in fig 16. Else, the tab would lodge in the track as shown in fig 15.).
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 system of Schoeren with the tabs of Varley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing for recoverable dislodgement of one edge of the door panel, as suggested in column 7, lines 12-16 of Varley.
PNG
media_image6.png
778
804
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
348
588
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 60.
The combination of Schoeren and Varley teaches all limitations of claim 58.
The combination, in Varley, further teaches the tab surface (100a, fig 13) extends between an outer edge and an inner edge (See fig 13), the inner edge closer to the second edge than the outer edge is to the second edge (See annotated fig 13), the inner edge closer to the panel (22, fig 13) than the outer edge is to the panel (See fig 13).
Regarding claim 61.
The combination of Schoeren and Varley teaches all limitations of claim 60.
The combination, in Varley, further teaches the point where the thickness is at the maximum thickness is proximate the outer edge (See annotated fig 13).
Claim(s) 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schoeren and Varley as applied to claim 58 above, and further in view of Gouthiere.
Regarding claim 59.
The combination of Schoeren and Varley teaches all limitations of claim 58.
Schoeren further discloses the second refeed block includes a second slanted surface angled relative to the second planar surface (See annotated fig 5).
Schoeren does not disclose the first refeed block includes a first slanted surface angled relative to the first planar surface, and the first slanted surface to be slanted at a steeper angle than the second slanted surface.
However, Gouthiere teaches the first refeed block (11a, fig 3) includes a first slanted surface angled relative to the first planar surface (See fig 1), and the first slanted surface to be slanted at a steeper angle than the second slanted surface (11b, 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 system of Schoeren with the slanted surface of Gouthiere. 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 smoother infeed to the channel.
Claim(s) 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schoeren and Boerger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Varley.
Regarding claim 62.
The combination of Schoeren and Boerger teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination does not teach a lateral retention tab to be coupled to side of the panel facing either the first track wall or the second track wall, the lateral retention tab including:
a first surface to face toward the panel;
a second surface to face away from the panel;
first and second edges, the first edge to be proximate a lateral edge of the panel, the second edge opposite the first edge so as to be closer to a center of the panel than the first edge is to the center of the panel; and
a protrusion that is to extend from the second surface in a direction away from the panel, the protrusion closer to the second edge than the protrusion is to the first edge.
However, Varley teaches a lateral retention tab (at 100a in fig 13) to be coupled to side of the panel (22, fig 13) facing either the first track wall or the second track wall (See fig 13), the lateral retention tab including:
a first surface (100a in fig 13) to face toward the panel (See fig 13);
a second surface (100b, fig 13) to face away from the panel (See fig 13);
first and second edges (See annotated fig 13), the first edge to be proximate a lateral edge of the panel (See annotated fig 13), the second edge opposite the first edge so as to be closer to a center of the panel than the first edge is to the center of the panel (See annotated fig 13); and
a protrusion (The junction of 100a and 100 protrudes from a line connecting corners of the first and second edges distal to the panel) that is to extend from the second surface in a direction away from the panel (See fig 13), the protrusion closer to the second edge than the protrusion is to the first edge (See annotated 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 further modify the combination of Schoeren and Boerger with the tabs of Varley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing for recoverable dislodgement of one edge of the door panel, as suggested in column 7, lines 12-16 of Varley.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12, and 58 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
/ABE MASSAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634