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 12/12/2025 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) 1-8, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. 7,111,660 – Hartmann in view of US Pat. 11,997,822 – Doglio et al., hereinafter Doglio.
Regarding claim 1.
Hartmann discloses a frame rail (660, fig 3) for a movable barrier (12, fig 1), comprising:
a top side (abutting 582 in fig 3), a bottom side (receiving 600 in fig 3), a front side (facing obliquely into the page in fig 3), and a rear side (facing obliquely out of the page in fig 3, to receive 534);
a first module connector (669’, fig 3) formed on the rear side (see fig 3) and having a first opening through a vertical rear surface of the frame rail (see fig 3), the first module connector extending along a length of the frame rail (See fig 3) and configured to slidably receive a corresponding second module connector (665, fig 3) of a module (534, fig 3); and
a third module connector (see annotated fig 3) formed on the rear side (see annotated fig 3) and having a second opening through the vertical rear surface of the frame rail (see annotated fig 3), the second opening spaced apart from the first opening (see annotated fig 3) with a portion of the vertical rear surface positioned between the first opening and the second opening (see annotated fig 3), the third module connector extending along the length (examiner notes that the aperture of the third module connector extends in three dimensions, including along a length of the frame rail) of the frame rail and configured to slidably receive a corresponding fourth module connector (775, fig 3) of the module (534, fig 3).
Hartmann does not disclose the first module connector extending along an entire length of the frame rail and configured to slidably receive a corresponding second module connector of a module; or the third module connector extending along the entire length of the frame rail and configured to slidably receive a corresponding fourth module connector of the module.
However, Doglio teaches the first module connector (See 115 in fig 4) extending along an entire length of the frame rail and configured to slidably receive a corresponding second module connector (See 420 in fig 4) of a module; and the third module connector (See 115 in fig 4) extending along the entire length of the frame rail and configured to slidably receive a corresponding fourth module connector (See 420 in fig 4) of the module.
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 rail of Hartmann with the connectors of Doglio. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of reducing fabrication costs by adopting easily extrudable geometries.
PNG
media_image1.png
712
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2.
The combination of Hartmann and Doglio teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Hartmann further discloses the third module connector (See annotated fig 3) extends along the length of the frame rail (examiner notes that the aperture of the first module connector extends in three dimensions, including along a length of the frame rail) parallel to the first module connector (See annotated fig 3).
Regarding claim 3.
The combination of Hartmann and Doglio teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Hartmann further discloses the frame rail (660, fig 3) has a continuous cross-section (See fig 12) with the first module connector (See annotated fig 3) integrally formed (of unitary construction, see annotated fig 3) with the top, bottom, front, and rear sides (See annotated fig 3).
Regarding claim 4.
The combination of Hartmann and Doglio teaches all limitations of claim 3.
Hartmann further discloses the frame rail (660, fig 3) is formed as an extrusion (Column 11, line 14; hinge coupler 660 is extruded).
Regarding claim 5.
The combination of Hartmann and Doglio teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Hartmann further discloses one of the first (669’, fig 3) or second module connectors (665, fig 3) comprises a groove (669’, fig 3) and the other of the first or second module connectors comprises a tongue (665, fig 3) configured for receipt within the groove (as in fig 19).
Regarding claim 6.
The combination of Hartmann and Doglio teaches all limitations of claim 5.
The combination, in Doglio, teaches a groove (at 415 in fig 4) and a tongue (at 420 in fig 4) are shaped as a dovetail in cross-section (See fig 4).
Regarding claim 7.
The combination of Hartmann and Doglio teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Hartmann further discloses the first module connector (669’, fig 3) is configured to slidably receive the second module connector (665, fig 3) from a longitudinal end surface of the frame rail (as in fig 19).
Regarding claim 8.
An alternate interpretation of Hartmann discloses a movable barrier (12, fig 1), comprising:
a plurality of interconnected panels (530, fig 1), a first panel of the plurality of interconnected panels comprising:
a first frame rail (660, fig 3) comprising:
a top side (abutting 582 in fig 3), a bottom side (receiving 600 in fig 3), a front side (facing obliquely into the page in fig 3), and a rear side (facing obliquely out of the page in fig 3, to receive 534);
a first module connector (See annotated fig 3) formed on the rear side, the first module connector extending along a length (examiner notes that the aperture of the first module connector extends in three dimensions, including along a length of the frame rail) of the first frame rail; and
a third module connector (669’, fig 3) formed on the rear side (See fig 3), the third module connector extending along the length (See fig 3) of the first frame rail, the third module connector comprising an upper surface and a lower surface (See annotated fig 19), the upper and lower surfaces angled (At least at tangent lines to the curvature of the upper and lower surfaces. See annotated fig 19) with respect to the rear side of the first frame rail apart (at a distance from) from one another in a direction extending from the rear side toward the front side (See annotated fig 19) (Examiner notes that this interpretation may be overcome by reciting that the angled surfaces diverge as distance from the rear side increases in the direction of the front side of the frame rail.);
a second frame rail (582, fig 3);
at least one stile (702, fig 3) connecting the first and second frame rails (See figs 3 and 4); and
a first module (534, fig 3) comprising a second module connector (775, fig 3) configured to slidably engage the first module connector (See annotated fig 3) and a fourth module connector (665, fig 3) configured to slidably engage the surfaces of the third module connector (669’, fig 3) to secure the first module to the first panel (See fig 19).
Hartmann does not disclose a first module comprising a second module connector configured to slidably engage the first module connector from a longitudinal end surface of the first frame rail and a fourth module connector configured to slidably engage the surfaces of the third module connector from the longitudinal end surface to secure the first module to the first panel.
However, Doglio teaches a first module comprising a second module connector (See at 420 in fig 4) configured to slidably engage (See fig 10) the first module connector (See at 115 in fig 4) from a longitudinal end surface of the first frame rail and a fourth module connector (See at 420 in fig 4)configured to slidably engage (See fig 10) the surfaces of the third module connector (See at 115 in fig 4) from the longitudinal end surface to secure the first module to the first panel (See 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 rail of Hartmann with the connectors of Doglio. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of reducing fabrication costs by adopting easily extrudable geometries.
PNG
media_image2.png
712
926
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
696
808
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11.
The combination of Hartmann and Doglio teaches all limitations of claim 8.
Hartmann further discloses the third module connector (669’, fig 3) extends along the length of the first frame rail (660, fig 3) parallel to the first module connector (See annotated fig 3).
Regarding claim 12.
The combination of Hartmann and Doglio teaches all limitations of claim 11.
The combination, Doglio, further teaches:
the first module connector and the third module connector each comprise a groove (as at 415, fig 4) and the second module connector and the fourth module connector each comprise a corresponding tongue (as at 420, fig 4);
or the first module connector and the third module connector each comprise a tongue and the second module connector and the fourth module connector each comprise a corresponding groove.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 13-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hartmann and Doglio, as applied above, and in further view of PG Pub. US 2006/0260273 A1 – Piumelli.
Regarding claim 9.
The combination of Hartmann and Doglio teaches all limitations of claim 8.
Hartmann does not disclose the first module comprises a reinforcing fin configured to resist flexing of the first panel.
However, Piumelli teaches the first module comprises a reinforcing fin (See annotated fig 8a) configured to resist flexing of the first panel.
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 barrier of Hartmann with the reinforcing fin of Piumelli. 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 rigidity of the barrier.
PNG
media_image4.png
704
778
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10.
The combination of Hartman, Doglio, and Piumelli teaches all limitations of claim 9.
Hartmann further discloses one of the first (669’, fig 3) or second module connectors (665, fig 3) comprises a groove (669’, fig 3) and the other of the first or second module connectors comprises a tongue (665, fig 3) configured for receipt within the groove (as in fig 19).
Regarding claim 13.
The combination of Hartmann and Doglio teaches all limitations of claim 11.
Hartmann does not disclose the first module comprises a reinforcing strut configured to resist flexing of the first panel.
However, Piumelli teaches the first module comprises a reinforcing strut (See annotated fig 8a) configured to resist flexing of the first panel.
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 barrier of Hartmann with the reinforcing strut of Piumelli. 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 rigidity of the barrier.
Regarding claim 14.
The combination of Hartman, Doglio, and Piumelli teaches all limitations of claim 13.
The combination, in Piumelli, further teaches the reinforcing strut (See annotated fig 8a) comprises a chamber (See annotated fig 8a) enclosed in cross-section extending along a length of the reinforcing strut (See annotated fig 8a).
Regarding claim 15.
The combination of Hartman, Doglio, and Piumelli teaches all limitations of claim 14.
The combination, in Piumelli, further teaches the reinforcing strut (See annotated fig 8a) comprises a support wall (See annotated fig 8a) positioned in the chamber and extending between a top wall of the reinforcing strut and a bottom wall of the reinforcing strut (See annotated fig 8a).
Regarding claim 17.
The combination of Hartmann and Doglio teaches all limitations of claim 8.
Hartmann further discloses:
the second frame rail (582, fig 3) comprises:
a top side (at 600 in fig 3), a bottom side (abutting 660 in fig 3), a front side (facing obliquely into the page in fig 3), and a rear side (facing obliquely out of the page in fig 3, to receive 534); and
at least one module connector (upper aperture in 582 to receive upper 775, fig 3) formed on the rear side of the second frame rail (See fig 3), the at least one module connector extending along a length (examiner notes that the aperture of the at least one module connector extends in three dimensions, including along a length of the frame rail) of the second frame rail; and
the movable barrier further comprises:
a second module (upper 777 aligned with upper aperture in 582 to receive upper 775, fig 3) comprising at least one module connector (upper 775 aligned with upper aperture in 582, fig 3) configured to slidably engage the at least one module connector of the second frame rail to secure the second module to the first panel (as in fig 19), a first stile (702, fig 3), and a second stile (as at 702, fig 3).
Hartmann does not disclose a glazing member positioned within an opening formed by the first frame rail, the second frame rail.
However, Piumelli teaches a glazing member (40, fig 8a) positioned within an opening formed by the first frame rail (37, fig 8a), the second frame rail (38, fig 8a).
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 barrier of Hartmann with the glazing member of Piumelli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing a user to view through the barrier.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hartman, Doglio, and Piumelli, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of us Pat. 5,857,510 – Krupke et al., hereinafter Krupke.
Regarding claim 16.
The combination of Hartman, Doglio, and Piumelli teaches all limitations of claim 14.
The combination does not teach the reinforcing strut comprises an internal support member slidably receivable within the chamber.
However, Krupke teaches an internal support member (96t, fig 6a) slidably receivable within a chamber (See fig 6a).
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 Hartman and Piumelli with the internal support member of Krupke. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of selectively increasing panel stiffness as suggested by the paragraph beginning column 5, line 53 of Krupke.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann in view of PG Pub. US 2006/0260273 A1 – Piumelli.
Regarding claim 18.
Hartmann discloses a method of assembling (Compare figs 3 and 4) a movable barrier (12, fig 1), comprising:
forming a plurality of panels (530, fig 1), each panel of the plurality of panels comprising a first frame rail (660, fig 3), a second frame rail (582, fig 3), a first stile (702, fig 3) connecting the first and second frame rails (See figs 3 and 4), and a second stile (as at 702, fig 3) connecting the first and second frame rails (See figs 3 and 4), wherein the first frame rail comprises:
a top side (abutting 582 in fig 3), a bottom side (receiving 600 in fig 3), a front side (facing obliquely into the page in fig 3), and a rear side (facing obliquely out of the page in fig 3, to receive 534);
a first module connector (669’, fig 3) formed on the rear side (See fig 3), the first module connector and a second module connector (an aperture in 660 to receive 775, fig 3) each extending along a length (examiner notes that the aperture of the second module connector extends in three dimensions, including along a length of the frame rail) of the first frame rail;
connecting each panel to one or more adjacent panels of the plurality of panels (See figs 3 and 4);
coupling a first module (534, fig 3) to a first panel (including 660 and 582, fig 3) of the plurality of panels by slidably engaging a first module connector (665, fig 3) of the first module with the first module connector (669’, fig 3) of the first frame rail (as in fig 19) and by slidably engaging a second module connector (775, fig 3) of the first module with the second module connector (aperture to receive 775, fig 3) of the first frame rail, at least one of the first or second module connectors of the first frame rail including opposing top and bottom surfaces angled (See annotated fig 19) apart (at a distance) from one another and non-parallel with respect to the rear side (See annotated fig 19), the top and bottom surfaces configured to engage corresponding surfaces of the respective first or second module connectors of the first module (See annotated fig 19);
and coupling a second module (uppermost 534, fig 3) to a second panel (including 584, fig 3) of the plurality of panels by slidably engaging a module connector (665, fig 3) of the second module with the module connector (669”, fig 3) of the first frame rail of the second panel (See fig 3).
Hartmann does not disclose an opening defined between a first frame rail, a second frame rail,
However, Piumelli teaches an opening (at 40, fig 8a) defined between a first frame rail (37, fig 8a), a second frame rail (38, fig 8a).
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 barrier of Hartmann with the opening of Piumelli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing a user to view through the barrier.
Regarding claim 19.
The combination of Hartman and Piumelli teaches all limitations of claim 18.
The combination does not explicitly teach the first module has a different cross-sectional profile than the second module.
However, Hartmann discloses the first module (534, fig 3) has a cross-sectional profile (See fig 19).
and Piumelli teaches a module (39, fig 7b) having a different cross-sectional profile than the first module of Hartmann.
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 method of Hartmann by providing modules having differing cross sectional profiles as suggested by the combination of Hartmann and Piumelli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing a selective increase of the rigidity of the barrier.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 18 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
Prosecution Insights