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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 22-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 22-30 each recite “The slat of claim [x]” and depend either directly or indirectly from claim 21. However, claim 21 is directed to “A rolling shutter system, comprising a slat”. Claims 22-30 are understood to require the rolling shutter system, and not just the slat, but the preambles of each claim must be amended to properly reference “The rolling shutter system of claim [x]”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the stop bar in the extended position projects transversely into the guide channel, and is slidable longitudinally in the guide channel; and wherein the stop bar in the extended position is positioned to engage the stop”. There is not sufficient support in the original disclosure for the limitation requiring that the stop bar is slidable longitudinally in the guide channel and positioned to engage the stop when it is in the extended position. The disclosure describes the extended position of the stop bar and engagement with the stop as a condition in which movement of the slat (and thus, the stop bar) is restricted. Paragraph 0035 of the specification states “When stop bar 112 is in the extended position, stop bar end 112a is positioned to engage the guide stop. In the embodiment of FIGS. 6 and 7, stop bar end 112a is extended into receptacle 24, and is positioned to contact the guide stop (not shown) and restrict the travel of slat 100 longitudinally within guide channel 12” and later states “When stop bar 112 is in the withdrawn position, stop bar end 112a is retracted from position to engage the guide stop. Slat 100 may travel freely within guide channel 12”. Paragraph 0042 also states “FIG. 10 shows stop bar 212 in the extended position with stop bar end 212a positioned to engage a (spring) guide stop 26, to restrict the movement of slat 200 longitudinally within guide channel 12. FIG. 9 shows stop bar 212 in the withdrawn position with stop bar end 212a retracted from position to engage guide stop 26, to allow slat 200 to move freely longitudinally within guide channel 12.”
The specification consistently describes the extended position of the stop bar as a condition in which longitudinal movement of the stop bar is restricted or otherwise prevented, while the withdrawn position is the one in which the stop bar is able to move longitudinally within the guide channel. Applicant did not point to a specific location in the disclosure to support these limitations. The limitations are not sufficiently supported in the original disclosure, and therefore constitute new matter. Claims 22-30 are rejected as being dependent from claim 21.
Specification
The amendment filed 10/3/22 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is located in the claims, as described above.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Recchione (U.S. Patent No. 3,078,917) in view of Daniels (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0021726).
Regarding claim 1, Recchione discloses a slat (100) for a rolling shutter (20), comprising:
a body (body of the lower slat 100) having opposite first and second body ends (opposing ends shown in Figure 1), opposite first and second body sides (opposing front and rear sides, respectively, shown in Figure 3), and a longitudinal body channel (channel shown in Figures 3 and 14 in which the stop bar 118, 119 is positioned) having a channel opening (at 122) at the first body end [FIG. 2], the first body side having a first lock opening into the channel (see annotated drawing below) and a side opening into the channel (the side opening is shown in at least Figures 2 and 3 as the slot through which the handle of the sliding bolt 118 extends); and
a stop bar (118, 119) comprising a second lock opening (opening shown in the phantom lines depicting the handle of the stop bar 118 in Figure 2--see annotated drawing below; this opening is also described in column 5, lines 11-15), the stop bar slidably received in the body channel and moveable between an extended position projecting from the channel opening [FIG. 2] and a withdrawn position retracted toward the body (column 4, line 68-column 5, line 8);
wherein the stop bar is actuatable through the side opening to move the stop bar between the extended and withdrawn positions (via handle of the bolt 118 shown in Figure 2), and the first and second lock openings are aligned when the stop bar is in the extended position (column 5, lines 11-15) [FIG. 2].
PNG
media_image1.png
609
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recchione does not disclose that the stop bar comprises a rack that is actuatable through the side opening.
Nonetheless, Daniels discloses a stop bar (26) comprising a rack (25), wherein the rack is actuatable (via handle 22) through a side opening of a body channel (body channel formed by adapter plate 15, shown in Figure 7).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stop bar of Recchione to include the rack mechanism taught by Daniels, in order to provide a mechanical advantage for movement of the stop bar, thereby allowing for the use of a larger or stronger stop bar, so as to improve the security of the assembly.
Regarding claim 6, Recchione discloses a lock pin (the “padlock or other retaining means” described in column 5, lines 11-15 reads on a lock pin given a broadest reasonable interpretation) wherein the aligned first and second lock openings are sized and shaped to receive the lock pin to secure the stop bar in the extended position (column 5, lines 11-15).
Claims 21-23 and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Recchione (U.S. Patent No. 3,078,917) in view of Daniels (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0021726) and Miller (U.S. Patent No. 6,095,224).
Regarding claim 21, Recchione discloses rolling shutter system (20), comprising
a slat (100), comprising:
a body (body of the lower slat 100) having opposite first and second ends (opposing ends shown in Figure 1), opposite first and second sides (opposing front and rear sides, respectively, shown in Figure 3), a longitudinal body channel (channel shown in Figures 3 and 14 in which the stop bar 118, 119 is positioned) having a channel opening (at 122) at the first end [FIG. 2], and a side opening to the channel in the first side (the side opening is shown in at least Figures 2 and 3 as the slot through which the handle of the sliding bolt 118 extends); and
a stop bar (118, 119), the stop bar slidably received in the body channel and moveable between an extended position projecting from the channel opening [FIG. 2] and a withdrawn position retracted toward the body (column 4, line 68-column 5, line 8);
a guide track (35) with a longitudinal guide channel (36) [FIG. 5], and a stop (stop defined by the perimeter of the opening 124) positioned in the guide channel [FIGS. 2, 14];
wherein the stop bar is actuatable through the side opening to move the stop bar between the extended and withdrawn positions (via handle of the bolt 118 shown in Figure 2);
wherein the stop bar in the extended position projects transversely into the guide channel [FIG. 2]; and
wherein the stop bar in the extended position is positioned to engage the stop (column 5, lines 2-8) [FIG. 2].
Recchione does not disclose that the stop bar comprises a rack that is actuatable through the side opening, or that the stop bar is slidable longitudinally in the guide channel when it is in the extended position.
Nonetheless, Daniels discloses a stop bar (26) comprising a rack (25), wherein the rack is actuatable (via handle 22) through a side opening of a body channel (body channel formed by adapter plate 15, shown in Figure 7).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stop bar of Recchione to include the rack mechanism taught by Daniels, in order to provide a mechanical advantage for movement of the stop bar, thereby allowing for the use of a larger or stronger stop bar, so as to improve the security of the assembly.
Furthermore, Miller discloses a shutter system including a stop bar (166) moveable to an extended position [FIG. 7] in which it is slidable longitudinally within a respective guide channel (channel defined by wall 190 and gap 192), wherein the stop bar in the extended position is positioned to engage a stop (194) [FIG. 10].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shutter system of Recchione to enable sliding movement of the stop bar in the extended position, as taught by Miller, in order to provide means for retaining the shutter in the track, so as to prevent disengagement or full retraction of the shutter onto its respective roller.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Recchione discloses the body channel and the side opening, but does not disclose a pinion.
Nonetheless, Daniels discloses a pinion (18) positioned in the body channel in engagement with the rack [FIGS. 6, 7, 9a], wherein the rotation of the pinion actuates the rack to move the stop bar (paragraph 0047), wherein the pinion is accessible for rotation through the side opening (via handle 22) [FIG. 7].
As set forth with respect to claim 21 above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stop bar of Recchione to include the rack and pinion actuating mechanism taught by Daniels, in order to facilitate the use of a larger and stronger stop bar, so as to improve the security of the assembly.
Regarding claims 25-27, Recchione discloses a first lock opening in the first body side (first lock opening defined in the cross bar 116 on the first body side, shown in Figure 2), and a second lock opening in the stop bar (second lock opening defined in the sliding bolt 118; column 5, lines 11-15); wherein the first and second lock openings are aligned when the stop bar is in the extended position (column 5, lines 11-15) [FIG. 2]; and a lock pin (the “padlock or other retaining means” described in column 5, lines 11-15 reads on a lock pin given a broadest reasonable interpretation) wherein the aligned first and second lock openings are sized and shaped to receive the lock pin to secure the stop bar in the extended position; wherein the lock pin is a removable fastener (column 5, lines 11-15).
Regarding claim 28, Recchione discloses that the body further comprises first and second flanges (opposing edges of the end plate 122 define first and second flanges on opposite sides of the slot 121, as shown in Figures 2 and 14) positioned in the body channel [FIG. 2], the first and second flanges spaced apart to form a guide slot (121), and wherein the stop bar is positioned in the guide slot to restrict the transverse movement of the stop bar in the body channel (column 4, line 75-column 5, line 2).
Regarding claim 29, Recchione discloses that the body comprises an end cap (122) positioned at the body first end, and wherein the channel opening is formed in the end cap [FIG. 2].
Regarding claim 30, Recchione, discloses the stop, but does not disclose that it is a spring.
Nonetheless, Miller discloses a rolling shutter system including a stop (194) that is a spring (the stop mechanism 194 includes a spring 200; column 7, lines 21-22).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shutter system of Recchione to include the spring stop taught by Miller, in order to prevent the shutter from being fully retracted into the housing, so as to keep the shutter properly engaged with the track and to prevent unintended disengagement.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Recchione (U.S. Patent No. 3,078,917) in view of Daniels (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0021726) and Miller (U.S. Patent No. 6,095,224), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Magro (U.S. Patent No. 5,657,805).
Regarding claim 24, Recchione, as modified above, discloses the stop bar, but does not disclose a longitudinal slot in the stop bar or a stop bar pin.
Nonetheless, Magro discloses a stop bar (84) comprising a longitudinal slot [FIG. 13]; and a stop bar pin (one of the bolts shown in Figure 11 extending through the lock body L, the stop bar 84, and the slat 28), wherein the stop bar pin travels in the slot as the stop bar moves between extended and withdrawn positions [FIGS. 9, 11].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stop bar of Recchione, as modified above, to include the slot and stop bar pin taught by Magro, in order to provide additional guidance for the movement of the stop bar, so as to ensure consistent movement, and to provide better reinforcement for the stop bar to resist bending or twisting forces associated with attempted forced entry through the shutter assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/25 with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Recchione does not disclose a slat with an opening into the channel that aligns with an opening in the stop bar, but this argument is not found persuasive. As described in the rejection above and shown in the annotated drawing above, the slat of Recchione includes all of the claimed openings in the slat, each having the required configuration. The first lock opening is not required to be positioned in a particular configuration or direction. The first lock opening identified in the annotated drawing constitutes an opening “into the channel”, as it communicates with the interior space of the channel from a position exterior of the channel. The channel is the space defined within the body of the slat, and is partially occupied by the stop bar 118. The opening as shown in Figure 2 provides an access point from a spot outside of the channel, through the crossbar 116, and into the interior of the channel (the location in which the stop bar is positioned). The claims do not require that the lock openings be positioned with an axis perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the slat, or any other particular configurations that are not taught by Recchione.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-30 are directed to the new limitations in the claims. These limitations appear to lack sufficient support, as set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above, and are further taught by Miller, as set forth in the rejection above. The amendments to the claims necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
The amendment to claim 10 to depend from claim 21 is acknowledged. Claims 10-20 stand withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected species, but may be eligible for rejoinder if they properly depend from an allowed claim.
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 ABE L MASSAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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.
/ABE MASSAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634