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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 10, it appears that a comma should be inserted following “guide”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the side guide" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-15 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected as being indefinite because it appears to require a configuration that is not permitted by claim 5, from which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lai (US 11,952,836).
Regarding claim 1, Lai teaches a smoke seal (fig. 18) for a smoke or fire curtain (col. 1, ln. 5-7) comprising:
a pair of sides (108a/b) defining a channel (132) and having in-turning lips (134) at one end defining an opening (fig. 18); and
at least one strip (130a) of fire-proof material (col. 8, ln. 10-11) extending from at least one side and directed towards a centre of the channel (fig. 18), the strip extending the length of the side and of a width to contact a curtain deployed between the sides (col. 7, ln. 58-62; fig. 18),
wherein when the curtain is deployed in the side guide the strip contacts the curtain and forms a barrier to passage of smoke through the side guide (col. 8, ln. 7-10; fig. 18), and wherein the strip is arranged such that on contact with the curtain at least a portion of the strip is directed away from the opening and the strip does not pass through the lips (fig. 18).
Regarding claim 2, Lai teaches the smoke seal described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the strip extends the whole length of the side guides (col. 7, ln. 58-59).
Regarding claim 3, Lai teaches the smoke seal described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the strip can flex to maintain contact with the curtain when the curtain moves sideways within the guide (col. 7, ln. 66-col. 8, ln. 2; fig. 18).
Regarding claim 4, Lai teaches the smoke seal described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the strip is resilient (col. 8, ln. 10-11) and angled towards the curtain so that it engages the deployed curtain (fig. 18) and is urged into contact with curtain material (col. 7, ln. 66-col. 8, ln. 2), forming a seal (col. 8, ln. 7-10).
Regarding claim 8, Lai teaches the smoke seal described regarding claim 1, and further comprising a carrier for holding the strip (col. 7, ln. 61-61; fig. 18 – the ribs 130a,b protrude from, or are held by, the surfaces 108a,b).
Regarding claim 9, Lai teaches the smoke seal described regarding claim 1, and further including two strips (130a,b), one attached and extending from each side (fig. 18).
Regarding claim 10, Lai teaches the smoke seal described regarding claim 9, and further wherein the pair of strips are in contact with each other when the curtain is not deployed.
It is noted that this is a functional limitation on the strips, and when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.I. Additionally, it is noted that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, Lai teaches a smoke, smoke and fire or fire curtain assembly (col. 1, ln. 5-7) comprising:
a smoke, smoke and fire, or fire curtain (106);
a roller (104) supporting the curtain (fig. 17) and for deployment and withdrawal of the smoke or fire curtain; and
a pair of side guides (108, see fig. 16) for engaging and retaining edges of the curtain (col. 7, ln. 2-4), each side guide comprising the smoke seal (fig. 18) described regarding claim 1, the sides being joined at the other end by a back (fig. 18).
Regarding claim 12, Lai teaches the assembly described regarding claim 11, and further comprising a headbox (102) holding the roller and curtain (fig. 17), the headbox having a front, back, two ends, a top, and a bottom having an opening though which the curtain can be deployed and returned (fig. 16, 17), the headbox further comprising a smoke seal (120) positioned above the opening in the bottom (fig. 17).
Regarding claim 14, Lai teaches the assembly described regarding claim 11, and further wherein the sides of the smoke seals of the side guides and headbox are continuous or joined (fig. 16).
Regarding claim 15, Lai teaches the assembly described regarding claim 11, and further wherein the strips of the smoke seals of the side guides and headbox are continuous or joined (fig. 16).
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Azuma et al. (JP 2001/204834, all citations herein refer to the translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Azuma teaches a smoke seal (30) for a smoke or fire curtain (par. 1) comprising:
a pair of sides (18a) defining a channel and having in-turning lips (34) at one end defining an opening (20, see fig. 2); and
at least one strip (30) of fire-proof material (par. 20) extending from at least one side and directed towards a centre of the channel (fig. 2), the strip extending the length of the side (par. 20) and of a width to contact a curtain deployed between the sides (par. 15; fig. 18),
wherein when the curtain is deployed in the side guide the strip contacts the curtain and forms a barrier to passage of smoke through the side guide (par. 24; fig. 2), and wherein the strip is arranged such that on contact with the curtain at least a portion of the strip is directed away from the opening and the strip does not pass through the lips (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Azuma teaches the smoke seal described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the strip is rolled back on itself to form a loop (par. 20; fig. 2), which in use contacts a deployed curtain.
Regarding claim 11, Azuma teaches a smoke, smoke and fire or fire curtain assembly (par. 1; fig. 1) comprising:
a smoke, smoke and fire, or fire curtain (11);
a roller (13) supporting the curtain (fig. 11) and for deployment and withdrawal of the smoke or fire curtain; and
a pair of side guides (18, see fig. 1) for engaging and retaining edges of the curtain (figs. 1, 2), each side guide comprising the smoke seal (fig. 2) described regarding claim 1, the sides being joined at the other end by a back (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Azuma teaches the assembly described regarding claim 11, and further wherein the strip(s) is made of the same fabric from which the curtain is made (par. 20).
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 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai.
Regarding claim 5, Lai discloses the smoke seal described regarding claim 1, but not specifically further wherein the width of each strip is approximately 70 - 150% of a distance between the sides.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a width of approximately 70 – 150% of a distance between the sides for the strips since our reviewing 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. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). The width of each strip would be sized in order to ensure a leak tight seal with the curtain while still allowing it to be lowered into position without difficulty.
Regarding claim 7, Lai discloses the smoke seal described regarding claim 5, but not specifically further wherein the width of each strip is approximately 140 - 300% of a distance between the sides.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a width of approximately 140 - 300% of a distance between the sides for the strips since our reviewing 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. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). The width of each strip would be sized in order to ensure a leak tight seal with the curtain while still allowing it to be lowered into position without difficulty.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stoebich et al. (US 5,862,851), Fernando et al. (US 2023/0175551), and Stoebich et al. (US 2002/0059985) all disclose smoke seals for fire curtains having elements of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752