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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/9/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The limitations that are interpreted under 112(f) are found in lines 2-3 of claim 9.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following non-limiting informalities:
Regarding claim 1:
Line 5 and line 12 recite “at the bottom”, but should recite “at the bottom of the insulated door leaf”
Line 12 recites “the one or more intermediate baffles comprise”, but should recite “the one or more intermediate baffles each comprise”
Line 13 recites “the top”, but should recite “the top of the insulated door leaf”
Line 17 recites “the intermediate baffles”, but should recite “the respective intermediate baffle”
Line 19 and line 21 both recite “the cords”, but should recite “the one or more cords”
Regarding claim 7:
Line 4 recites “which top and bottom part”, but should recite “which top and bottom parts”
Regarding claim 10:
Line 7 recites “a top”, but should recite “the top”
Lines 8-9 recite “the horizontal direction”, but should recite “a horizontal direction”
Lines 9-10 recite “the flexible web does not conform to the bottom face”. This is interpreted as merely requiring a state where the flexible web does not conform to the bottom face, rather than always requiring this, which is consistent with the applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 14:
Line 1 recites “the flexible web”, but should recite “each flexible web”
It is up to the applicant to find and correct all issues similar to those described above. Appropriate correction is required. The claims are examined as best understood.
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) 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanahan (US 20170218683) in view of Villella (US 5547241) and Ungs (US 20120018102).
Regarding claim 10, Shanahan teaches an immediate baffle comprising an insulating baffle (20) extending in a width (the height direction in fig. 7) and towards a bottom (left in fig. 7) and a top (right in fig. 7) and adapted to (functional language) engage with a bottom baffle at the bottom via one or more cords (84) to extend from the bottom baffle through one or more common cord channels (64a) in the intermediate baffle, the intermediate baffle comprising a bottom face (left side of 20) towards the bottom baffle and an opposite top face (right side) towards the top;
wherein the bottom face is concave and the top face is convex (figs. 7-8).
Shanahan does not teach that the immediate baffle comprising an insulating baffle extends horizontally in the width and vertically towards the bottom with the one or more common cord channels extending vertically in the intermediate baffle, nor that the intermediate baffle is wrapped in a flexible web wrapped around the horizontal direction and covering the bottom and top faces, and wherein the flexible web does not conform to the bottom face.
Villella teaches a baffle with one or more cords extending through baffle channels, the baffle extending horizontally in a width and vertically towards a bottom with the one or more common cord channels extending vertically (figs. 3-4). 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 Shanahan so that the orientation is like that of Villella with the immediate baffle comprising an insulating baffle extending horizontally in the width and vertically towards the bottom with the one or more common cord channels extending vertically in the intermediate baffle. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a known orientation of common roll type garage doors.
Ungs teaches (fig. 8), an insulated door leaf with a baffle (12) that is individually wrapped in a flexible web (36) wrapped around a horizontal direction and covering bottom and top faces, wherein the flexible web does not conform to the bottom face of the baffle (fig. 8 clearly shows that the flexible web is separated from the bottom of the baffle when there is not another baffle pushing it against the bottom of the baffle). 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 Shanahan so that the that the intermediate baffle is wrapped in a flexible web wrapped around the horizontal direction and covering the bottom and top faces, and wherein the flexible web does not conform to the bottom face. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a better seal between the baffles.
Regarding claim 13, modified Shanahan teaches an insulated door leaf comprising an intermediate baffle according to claim 10 (see claim 10 rejection above), the insulated door leaf extending in a height from a bottom to a top in a vertical direction and in a width in an intended horizontal direction (see modification to claim 10 above) for a corresponding gate (everything in fig. 1) that extends vertically in a height from a bottom to a top and horizontally in a width (see fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-9, 12, and 14 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/9/2025 have been fully considered are considered persuasive regarding claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive concerning claim 10, where the examiner notes that only one insulated baffle is required by the claim. The above combination teaches the limitations as claimed.
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
/ABE MASSAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights