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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/28/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-9, 13-17, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquez (US 4220189) in view of Markowitz (US 5127459).
Regarding claim 1, Marquez teaches a system, comprising:
a first anchor (at top) comprising a first fastening system configured to couple the first anchor to a doorframe (shown in fig. 2);
a second anchor (at bottom in fig. 2) comprising a second fastening system that couples the second anchor to at least one of the doorframe at a lower portion than the first anchor or a floor to which the doorframe is coupled (as is shown in fig. 2); and
a tearable material (14, the material is capable of being teared) coupled to and spanning between the first anchor and the second anchor, but does not teach that the tearable material comprises a plurality of perforations configured to cause the tearable material to tear, while the first anchor and the second anchor remain in place, in response to a user contacting the tearable material.
Markowitz teaches a tearable material (1) comprises a plurality of perforations (each 5) configured to cause the tearable material to tear (capable of). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Marquez with teachings of Markowitz so that the tearable material comprises a plurality of perforations configured to cause the tearable material to tear. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing a user to pass objects through, or adjust the size of the tearable material.
It is noted that after this modification, the first anchor and the second anchor remain in place, in response to a user contacting the tearable material.
Regarding claim 2, modified Marquez teaches that the first anchor comprises a first anchor first side (side against 24) and a first anchor second side (side against frame), and a first anchor body spanning therebetween, and wherein the second anchor comprises a second anchor first side (side against 44) and a second anchor second side (side against 44), and a second anchor body spanning therebetween.
Regarding claim 3, modified Marquez teaches that each of the first fastening system and the second fastening system comprises an adhesive material (column 2 lines 3-43 describe the peel-back adhesive on each of the fastening systems).
Regarding claim 4, modified Marquez teaches that the first fastening system comprises the adhesive material disposed on each of the first anchor first side and the first anchor second side (as described in column 2 lines 3-43 and shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, modified Marquez teaches that the first fastening system comprises the adhesive material disposed on the first anchor body configured to couple the first anchor to an upper portion of the doorframe (as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, modified Marquez teaches that the second fastening system comprises the adhesive material disposed on each of the second anchor first side and the second anchor second side (as shown in fig. 2 and described in column 2 lines 3-43).
Regarding claim 7, modified Marquez teaches that the second fastening system comprises the adhesive material disposed on the second anchor body configured to couple the second anchor to the floor (capable of this).
Regarding claim 8, modified Marquez teaches that the perforations of the plurality of perforations are disposed in a plurality of perforation lines within a perforated portion of the tearable material (see fig. 1 of Markowitz).
Regarding claim 9, modified Marquez teaches that each perforation line comprises at least one smaller perforation and at least one larger perforation, wherein the at least one smaller perforation comprises a first length that is smaller than a second length of the at least one larger perforation (see fig. 1 of Markowitz).
Regarding claim 13, modified Marquez teaches that that the perforated portion extends to side edges of the tearable material (fig. 1 of Markowitz).
Regarding claim 14, although modified Marquez teaches a length between the first anchor first side and the first anchor second side, it does not explicitly teach that the first anchor body is about thirty-six inches in length between the first anchor first side and the first anchor second side.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Marquez so that the first anchor body is about thirty-six inches in length between the first anchor first side and the first anchor second side. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the device being sized according to a user’s requirements.
Regarding claim 15, modified Marquez teaches that the first anchor body comprises a first anchor shell (20) and a cavity disposed therein (see fig. 2), wherein a roll (16) is disposed within the cavity, wherein the tearable material is coupled to and unrolled from the roll, wherein the first anchor shell comprises a void through which the tearable material is disposed and unrolled from the roll (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, modified Marquez teaches that the roll is configured to be removed from the first anchor shell after tearing of the tearable material (capable of this).
Regarding claim 17, although modified Marquez teaches a total length of the system with the material fully extended, it does not explicitly teach that a total length of the system with the tearable material fully extended is about eighty inches.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Marquez so that a total length of the system with the tearable material fully extended is about eighty inches. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the device being sized according to a user’s requirements.
Regarding claim 19, modified Marquez teaches that the tearable material is configured, in response to the first anchor being coupled to the doorframe and the second anchor being coupled to at least one of the lower portion of the doorframe or the floor, to be taut between the first anchor and the second anchor (this will happen in response to the anchors being coupled as claimed).
Regarding claim 22, modified Marquez teaches that the tearable material is monolithic (made from a single sheet).
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquez (US 4220189) in view of Markowitz (US 5127459), as applied above, and further in view of Miller (US 4102385).
Regarding claim 10, modified Marquez teaches that each perforation line of the plurality of perforation lines spans in a first direction (vertical direction), along which at least one perforation in each perforation line spans (see fig. 1 of Markowitz), but does not explicitly teach that wherein, along a second direction that is different than the first direction, a smaller perforation of a first perforation line of the plurality of perforation lines is at least partially aligned with a larger perforation of a second perforation line of the plurality of perforation lines.
Miller teaches a window shade with large and small perforations that span in a first direction (see top left corner of fig. 5, and note that column 6 line 60 through column 7 line 4 describe that these lines maybe be “perforated”), and that wherein, along a second direction (perpendicular to the first direction) that is different than the first direction, a smaller perforation of a first perforation line of the plurality of perforation lines is at least partially aligned with a larger perforation of a second perforation line of the plurality of perforation lines (in the top left of fig. 5, when you go along the second direction, a smaller perforation is at least partially aligned with a larger perforation as is claimed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Marquez so that along a second direction that is different than the first direction, a smaller perforation of a first perforation line of the plurality of perforation lines is at least partially aligned with a larger perforation of a second perforation line of the plurality of perforation lines.
This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the device being shaped according to a user’s requirements.
Regarding claim 11, modified Marquez teaches that the first direction spans between the first anchor and the second anchor (the vertical direction), and wherein the second direction spans substantially perpendicular to the first direction (see claim 10 rejection above).
Claim(s) 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquez (US 4220189) in view of Markowitz (US 5127459) as applied above, and further in view of Brisbois (US 20080196315).
Regarding claim 20, modified Marquez does not teach a solid top margin without perforations spanning from the first anchor to up to six inches from the first anchor, wherein each perforation line of the plurality of perforation lines spans from the top margin toward the second anchor.
Brisbois teaches a door cover with a margin without perforations spanning from a side to a line of perforation (paragraph 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Marquez so that there is a solid top margin without perforations spanning from the first anchor to up to six inches from the first anchor, wherein each perforation line of the plurality of perforation lines spans from the top margin toward the second anchor.
This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the device being sized according to a user’s requirements.
Regarding claim 21, modified Marquez does not teach a solid bottom margin without perforations spanning from the second anchor to up to six inches from the second anchor, wherein each perforation line of the plurality of perforation lines spans from the bottom margin toward the first anchor.
Brisbois teaches a door cover with a margin without perforations spanning from a side to a line of perforation (paragraph 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Marquez so that there is a solid bottom margin without perforations spanning from the second anchor to up to six inches from the second anchor, wherein each perforation line of the plurality of perforation lines spans from the bottom margin toward the first anchor.
This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the device being sized according to a user’s requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R SHEPHERD whose telephone number is (571)272-5657. 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.
/M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634