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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/01/2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figures 5a and 5b contain hand drawn reference characters and reference callouts, which are inconsistent with the rest of the drawings.
Element 13 is also completely different when comparing fig. 3, fig. 4, and figs. 5a and 5b. For example, in fig. 3 element 13 is a box on the inside of the guides 12, in fig. 4 it is a plate extending inside of the guides, and in figs. 5a and 5b it is found on the back side of the guides.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2 recites “the U-profile”, but should say “the U-shaped profile”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ulf (EP 3306026A1, translation provided by applicant), in view of Kraeutler (US 10113353).
Regarding claim 1, Ulf teaches a roll door unit (fig. 1, paragraph 13) for covering a door opening comprising a flexible door panel (5), a rotatable roll shaft (paragraph 13) for rolling-up the flexible door panel (5), side frames (2s, paragraph 13), mounting flanges (10a’s, paragraphs 19 and 21) for mounting the roll shaft (15) to the side frames (2s), a connecting element (one of the 11a’s) for connecting a motor unit (6) to the roll shaft, and supporting beams (12a’s, paragraphs 19-20) for supporting the side frames (2s) in a mounted state and being connected or connectable to a wall or ground (capable of), whereby a longitudinal axis of the roll shaft is positioned in alignment with a plane being spanned by the supporting beams (paragraph 21),
characterized in that, the supporting beams (12a’s) and the mounting flanges (10a’s) are each connected with a respective one of the side frames (2s) and arranged along the respective side frame, wherein each mounting flange (10a’s) is arranged vertically above a respective one of the supporting beams (fig. 6), wherein the respective mounting flange (10a’s) and respective supporting beam (12a’s) are connected with the respective side frame (2s) at positions on the respective side frame a distance from one another (12a is connected to 2 all along the length of 2, while 10a is connected to 2 at the top) in such a way, that in the mounted state, forces exerted by the roll shaft are introduced into the supporting beams (12as) indirectly through the side frames (forces exerted by the roll shaft are able to transfer directly to element 2 from element 10a, and then transfer from 2 to element 12a. This is in addition to forces being able to be directly transferred between components 10a and 12a).
Ulf does not teach that each mounting flange is not directly connected to the respecting supporting beam.
Kraeutler teaches a roll door unit with
side frames (6s), mounting flanges (20s), and supporting beams (17s) for supporting the side frames in a mounted state and being connected or connectable to a wall or ground (capable of, column 3 lines 34-35),
characterized in that, the supporting beams (17s) and the mounting flanges (20s) are each connected with a respective one of the side frames (fig. 2) and arranged along a respective side frame, wherein each mounting flange (20) is arranged vertically above a respective one of the supporting beams (17, fig. 2), wherein the respective mounting flange (20) and respective supporting beam (17) are connected with the respective side frame (6) at positions on the respective side frame a distance from one another (fig. 2) in such a way, that in the mounted state, forces exerted by a roll shaft are introduced into the supporting beams indirectly through the side frames.
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 Ulf with teachings of Kraeutler by adding the support beams of Kraeutler so that each mounting flange is not directly connected to the respecting supporting beam. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of providing a strong and secure connection between the side frames and the ground.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ulf teaches that a connecting element (the second 11a as there must be one per side) for connecting the mounting flanges (10a’s) with the roll shaft is arranged at least partly above the supporting beams (see modification above, fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ulf teaches that the side frames (2s) comprise a U-shaped profile (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ulf teaches that the mounting flanges (10a’s) are at least partly connected to legs (the legs form the “u shape” along with a base of the side frames) of the U-profile of the side frames (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ulf teaches that in the mounted state the roll shaft is positioned on a rear side of the flexible door panel (fig. 4), whereby the rear side is located on the same side as a work area of a machine and/or a robot (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ulf teaches that the supporting beams are at least partly arranged between legs (at least part of the supporting beams is found in an area that is located between the legs of the two side frames after the modification above) of a profile of the side frames (2s).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ulf teaches a roll-up door (5) comprising a roll door unit according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ulf teaches a production facility and/or work area (fig. 4) comprising at least one roll-up door (5) according to claim 13 (see claim 13 rejection above).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ulf teaches use of a roll door unit according to claim 1 (the examiner notes that claim 15 is clearly a method claim requiring use of a roll door unit and providing the roll door unit according to claim 1, and that it is inherent to use the roll door unit as described in the claim 1 rejection above) for temporarily separating a work area and/or for protecting a machine or robot comprising the step of providing the roll door unit (intended use).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ulf (EP 3306026A1, translation provided by applicant) in view of Kraeutler (US 10113353) as applied above, and further in view of Jerry (US 7516770).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ulf does not teach that an upper end of the respective mounting flange is arranged below or on a same level with an upper end of the respective side frame.
Jerry teaches (fig. 2) a roll door unit (fig. 1) with an upper end of a mounting flange (top of 42) that is arranged at or the same level with an upper end of a side frame (30). 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 Ulf so that an upper end of the respective mounting flange is arranged on a same level with an upper end of the respective side frame. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of making lining up the components during assembly easier.
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ulf (EP 3306026A1, translation provided by applicant) in view of Kraeutler (US 10113353) as applied above, and further in view of Cloninger (US 20100024992).
Regarding claims 10-11, modified Ulf does not teach at least one sensor element, switch and/or signal unit is connected to the side frames, characterized in that the sensor element, the switch and/or the signal unit is connected to an interface for transmitting signals to and/or receiving signals from a signal processing unit of a control system.
Cloninger teaches a roll door unit with at least one sensor element (160 paragraph 24), connected to side frames (171c, all components are connected in the assembly), characterized in that the sensor element (160), is connected to an interface (what connects the sensor to the control system as described in paragraph 24) for transmitting signals to and/or receiving signals (functional language) from a signal processing unit of a control system (150).
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 Ulf so that there is at least one sensor element connected to the side frames, characterized in that the sensor element, is connected to an interface for transmitting signals to and/or receiving signals from a signal processing unit of a control system. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the system being able to determine its opening state, allowing automation of the device.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ulf (EP 3306026A1, translation provided by applicant) in view of Kraeutler (US 10113353) as applied above, and further in view of Veatch (US 20180283091).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ulf does not explicitly teach that the flexible door panel comprises a curtain.
Veatch teaches a roll door unit with a flexible door panel that comprises a curtain (paragraph 31). 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 Ulf so that the flexible door panel comprises a curtain. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a known type of door panel.
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
Prosecution Insights