DETAILED ACTION
The following Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 1/19/2026.
Status of the claims: claims 24, 27-43,45-46 are hereby examined below.
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.
Claim 41 is 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 41 recites “the pull safety”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner presumes this should read – the cable --.
Claims are being examined as best understood.
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 24, 27-29, 30-32 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoebich et al US 2014/0190709.
In regard to claim 24, with reference to Figures 30,33 and 34, Stoebich et al ‘709 disclose a roller door assembly comprising a door leaf that is at least partially configured as a curtain (106) made of flexible material and which is movable along a movement path between an open position (up) , in which the door leaf at least partially opens a wall opening and forms a multi-layer winding above the wall opening, and a closed position (down), in which the door leaf at least partially closes the wall opening; a stabilizing device (232, bottommost) coupled with a lower edge (at 252A) of the curtain, wherein the stabilizing device extends approximately perpendicularly to the movement path, and wherein the stabilizing device (232, bottommost) is configured to, when the door leaf is in the closed position, counteract deformation of the curtain in a load direction that extends perpendicularly to a closing plane that is defined by the movement path and the stabilizing device; wherein the curtain includes at least a first curtain segment (230A, top Figure 34) and a second curtain segment (230A, bottom, Figure 4) that follow one another in the direction of the movement path, and wherein the at least first and second curtain segments (230A) are releasably connected to one another along at least one predetermined dividing region (within 232, Figure 34) by an elastically deformable connecting device (232, paragraph [0183] states that 240A and 240B are opened and then secured by a biasing member which would be elastically deformable) in such a way that mutually facing edges of the first and second curtain segments that extend perpendicularly to the moving direction remain deformable (they are able to be deformed); wherein the at least one predetermined dividing line (within 232) extends approximately perpendicularly to the closing plane; the deformable connecting device (232 as described above) is configured to releasably connect the mutually facing edges of the first and second curtain segments (230A, top and bottom) (Figure 34); wherein the connecting device (232) includes a first receptacle (259A) connected with the first curtain segment (230A, top) and a second receptacle (259B) connected with the second curtain segment (230A, bottom), wherein the first and second receptacles are configured to provide formfitting accommodation of respective ones of the mutually facing edges of the first and second curtain segments (230A, top and bottom), and wherein the mutually facing edges have thickenings (250A, 250B) formed as beads or beadings.
Stoebich et al ‘709 fail to disclose the deformable connecting device is made of an elastomer material and/or plastic. However, Figure 31 of Stoebich discloses that the member 264 can be formed from an elastic material such as spring steel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Stoebich et al ‘709 to form the connecting device from an elastomer or plastic material for the benefits of light weight, low cost and resistant to rust or corrosion common to metal parts. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regard to claim 27, Stoebich et al ‘709 discloses respective ones of the first and second receptacles (259A,259B) have a guide groove (between 274A,276A and 274B,276B) that extends in a longitudinal direction of the receptacles, the respective guide grooves have a constant cross section in the direction of the predetermined separating line, the guide grooves are configured to allow insertion of respective ones of the mutually facing edges (of 230A, top and bottom, Figure 34) in the longitudinal direction, respective ones of the receptacles further include respective longitudinal openings that are oriented in the direction of the movement path; and the longitudinal openings have a width in the load direction that is smaller than a maximum dimension of the thickenings (250A, 250B).
Stoebich et al ‘709 fails to disclose the first and second receptacles are produced in one piece with each other.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device to form the first and second receptacles in one piece with each other since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993). Forming the receptacles in one piece may be stronger.
In regard to claim 28, Stoebich et al ‘709 discloses wherein a cross section of the connecting device (232) in a section plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction is designed symmetrically with respect to an axis oriented in the direction of the movement path or with respect to an axis oriented parallel to the predetermined separating line, wherein the axis extends through a connecting web that connects the first and second receptacles (259A,259B).
In regard to claim 29, Stoebich et al ‘709 disclose wherein the connecting device (232) is configured to release at least one of the curtain segments (230A, top and bottom) when a load acting on the curtain (106) exceeds a predetermined load limit in the load direction. (paragraph [0183] states that the member 232 can be biased closed, thus a load that exceeds the holding force of the biasing member will allow the curtain segments to be released)
In regard to claim 30, Stoebich et al ‘709 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the closed position is a position in which the connecting device is at a distance in the range of 250 millimeters (mm) to 1250 mm from a floor related to the wall opening.
However, as seen in Figure 30, the connecting device (232) can be located at multiple heights from the bottom to the top. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to locating the connecting device in the range of 250 mm to 1250 mm from a floor based on a user’s needs.
In regard to claim 31, Stoebich et al ‘709 disclose wherein the connecting device (232) is a double beading rail.
In regard to claim 32, Stoebich et al ‘709 fail to disclose wherein a restoring force that counteracts a deformation of the connecting device in the load direction is smaller than a restoring force that counteracts a deformation of the stabilizing device in the load direction.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to make a restoring force of the connecting device be smaller than a restoring force of the stabilizing device as the stabilizing device is located lower and would be more likely to be impacted thus would need more resistance to deformation.
In regard to claim 45, Stoebich et al ‘709 disclose at least one guide device (110A) arranged on a lateral edge of the door leaf, wherein the at least one guide device is configured to guide the door leaf when the door leaf is moving in the closing plane; and an inlet arrangement (top of 110A) arranged at an upper edge of the guide device, wherein the inlet arrangement is configured to allow a lateral edge of the door leaf to be automatically insertable into the guide device during a closing movement of the roller door assembly.
Claims 24 and 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kweon et al KR20090077108 in view of Stoebich et al US 2014/0190709.
In regard to claim 24, with reference to Figures 1-6, Kweon et al ‘108 disclose a roller door assembly comprising a door leaf that is at least partially configured as a web-like curtain made of flexible material and which is movable along a movement path between an open position (up) , in which the door leaf at least partially opens a wall opening and forms a multi-layer winding above the wall opening, and a closed position (down), in which the door leaf at least partially closes the wall opening; a stabilizing device (2, bottommost) coupled with the web-like curtain, wherein the stabilizing device extends approximately perpendicularly to the movement path, and wherein the stabilizing device (2, bottommost) is configured to, when the door leaf is in the closed position, counteract deformation of the curtain in a load direction that extends perpendicularly to a closing plane that is defined by the movement path and the stabilizing device; wherein the web-like curtain includes at least a first curtain segment (10, top Figure 2) and a second curtain segment (10, bottom, Figure 2) that follow one another in the direction of the movement path, and wherein the at least first and second curtain segments (10) are releasably connected to one another along at least one predetermined separating region by a connecting device (2) in such a way that mutually facing edges of the first and second curtain segments that extend perpendicularly to the moving direction remain deformable (they are able to be deformed); wherein the at least one predetermined separating region (within 2) extends approximately perpendicularly to the closing plane; wherein the connecting device (2) includes a first receptacle (21, top) connected with the first curtain segment (10, top) and a second receptacle (21, bottom) connected with the second curtain segment (10, bottom), wherein the first and second receptacles are configured to provide formfitting accommodation of respective ones of the mutually facing edges of the first and second curtain segments (10, top and bottom), and wherein the mutually facing edges have thickenings (12) formed as beads or beadings.
Kweon ‘106 fails disclose the connecting device is elastically deformable and configured to releasably connect the mutually facing edges of the first and second curtain segments. Stoebich et al ‘709 discloses the connecting device (232, Fig. 31) is elastically deformable (formed of spring steel) and configured to releaseably connect the mutually facing edges of the first and second curtain segments.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Kweon ‘106 to make the connecting device elastically deformable as taught by Stoebich et al ‘709 for the purpose of providing a secure, yet releasable connection if needed. It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the connecting device to be formed from an elastomer and/or plastic or the benefits of light weight, low cost and resistant to rust or corrosion common to metal parts. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regard to claim 42, Kweon ‘106 discloses at least one fixing device (25) configured to fix at least one edge of at least the first or second curtain segments (10), wherein the at least one edge extends perpendicularly to the movement path.
In regard to claim 43, Kweon ‘106 discloses wherein the fixing device (25) includes at least one fixing pin.
Kweon ‘106 fails to disclose the fixing device is a fixing bolt or screw.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice that pins, bolts and screws are interchangeable types of fasteners and one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have known to use a bolt or screw for a more secure connection.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s acceptance of examiner’s Official Notice that it is well known in the art to use bolts and screws as alternatives to pins. Applicant’s lack of arguments or traversal results in the Official Notice being acknowledged as admitted prior art. Per MPEP 2144.03 [R-1] (C) (emphasis by examiner):
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate.
Thus the issues are considered admitted prior art.
Claims 33-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoebich et al US 2014/0190709 in view of Voges et al US 2015/0007948.
In regard to claim 33, Stoebich et al ‘709 fail to disclose a securing device that is configured to prevent relative movement of the first and second curtain segments along the predetermined separating line.
Voges et al ‘948 disclose a securing device (110,111,112) that is configured to prevent relative movement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Stoebich et al ‘709 to include the securing device as taught by Voges et al ‘948 to provide a means to help maintain a position of the device when in motion. (paragraph [0020])
In regard to claim 34, Stoebich et al ‘709 as modified by Voges et al ‘948 disclose the securing devices (110,111,112 Voges et al ‘709) are connected in a form-fitting manner.
In regard to claim 35, Stoebich et al ‘709 as modified by Voges et al ‘948 disclose wherein the securing devices (110,111,112 Voges et al ‘709) are configured to absorb axial forces acting parallel to the edges of the first and second curtain segments (of Stoebich et al ‘709) that extend perpendicularly to the movement path.
In regard to claim 36, Stoebich et al ‘709 as modified by Voges et al ‘948 disclose wherein the securing device includes: securing means (112) that are fixedly attached with respect to the wall opening; and at least one securing module (110,111) attached to the connecting device (of Stoebich), wherein the securing module includes at least one contact surface (on 110) that can be applied to a counter surface of the securing means (112) for absorbing the axial forces.
In regard to claim 37, Voges et al ‘948 disclose wherein the contact surface is formed by at least one guide roller (110) that is rotatably mounted with respect to a roller axis that extends perpendicularly to the closing plane in the closed position, and when the roller door is in the closed position, the at least one guide roller (110) is accommodated in the securing means (112), wherein the securing means extends approximately in a direction of gravity, and wherein the securing means includes a slot that is passed through by a lateral edge of the door leaf and is designed as a hollow profile. (shown in Figure 1)
In regard to clam 38, Voges et al ‘948 disclose wherein at least one fixing bolt or fixing screw (axle on which 110 rotates) passes through the at least one securing module (110,111).
In regard to claim 39, Stoebich et al ‘709 as modified by Voges et al ‘948 disclose wherein the securing device (110,111,112) is attached to opposite axial ends of the connecting device in a formfitting, frictional, or materially-bonded manner.
In regard to claim 40, Stoebich et al ‘709 as modified by Voges et al ‘948 disclose wherein the securing devices are connected to one another by a cable (114) configured to absorb axial forces and to relieve load on the connecting device (of Stoebich)
In regard to claim 41, Stoebich et al ‘709 as modified by Voges et al ‘948 disclose wherein the cable (114, Voges et al ‘948) passes through a channel in the connecting device (232, Stoebich et al ‘709), wherein the channel extends parallel to the edges of the first and second curtain segments that extend perpendicularly to the movement path.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoebich et al US 2014/0190709 in view of Weigel et al US 2021/0054586.
In regard to claim 46, Stoebich et al ‘709 disclose wherein one of the first and second curtain segments (106) forms a lower edge of the curtain.
Stoebich et al ‘709 fail to disclose wherein the one of the first and second curtain segments that forms a lower edge of the curtain has an optical indicator that is visually different from the other one of the first and second curtain segments.
Wiegel et al ‘586 disclose an optical indicator (304) that is visually different from the other one of the first and second curtain segments (312).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to include an optical indicator as taught by Wiegel et al ‘586 to indicate a possible safety hazard for a user. (paragraph [0030])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Stoebich does not disclose an elastomer/plastic material, this is addressed in the rejection above. As taught by the embodiment of Figure 31, Stoebich teaches that it is known to use an elastic spring steel to hold the curtain edges in place. As such, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Figures 30,33,34 to be formed from an elastomer/plastic for the benefits of light weight, low cost and resistant to rust or corrosion common to metal parts. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Applicant argues that modifying the device of Stoebich to be elastomer or plastic would not have been obvious because such would introduce elastic deformation and creep under load, compromising the secure clamping function described by Stoebich. The examiner disagrees as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if using elastomer or plastic, the mechanism of Stoebich would be engineered to still perform as desired. One having ordinary skill in the art would know to select the appropriate elastomer/plastic to achieve the desired results.
In response to applicant’s argument that the member 232 of Stoebich does not disclose elastic deformation for retention, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As the biasing member must be deformed to allow the welts to be inserted, it meets this limitation.
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 JEREMY C RAMSEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3133. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 7:00-3:30.
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.
/JEREMY C RAMSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights