DETAILED ACTION
The following Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 12/2/2025.
Status of the claims: claims 21-34 are hereby examined below.
Claim Interpretation
In response to applicant’s arguments with regard to the examiner’s interpretation of the claim limitations “door release mechanism” and “limiter for limiting the amount of force”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant states that claims 24 and 34 do no recite the term “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder. Applicant states that “door release mechanism” does not recite a generic placeholder like “mechanism”, but instead is preceded by a structural modifier. The examiner would argue that “door release” is not a structure but a function. In other words, “door release mechanism” could be “a mechanism (means) for releasing the door”. As such, there is no structural modifier.
Applicant states that “limiter” is not a generic placeholder or nonce term the examiner respectfully disagree. There is no structure set forth by the term “limiter” and the structure that follows is only that which is acted upon by the limiter.
The previous interpretation under 112(f) is maintained.
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 21-25 and 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daus et al US 7,878,230 in view of Klose DE10132107.
In regard to claim 21, with reference to Figure 2, Daus et al ‘230 disclose an adjustable door braking system comprising: A shaft (42); a brake pad (46) configured to be mounted to the shaft (42); a plate (44) configured to be mounted on the shaft (42) adjacent to the brake pad (46); a spring (50) configured to be coiled around the shaft (42) to urge the plate (44) toward the brake pad (46)
Daus et al ‘230 fails to disclose a threaded adjustment piece dimensioned and sized to be threaded on the shaft on a first side of the plate and configured to adjust an amount of force with which the spring urges the plate against the brake pad disposed on a second side of the plate; the shaft rotates with respect to the adjustment piece.
Klose ‘107 discloses a threaded adjustment piece (83) dimensioned and sized to be threaded on the shaft (90) on a first side of the plate (85) and configured to adjust an amount of force with which the spring (84) urges the plate (85) against the pad (88) disposed on a second side of the plate; the adjustment piece (83) rotates with respect to the shaft (90).
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 Daus et al ‘230 to include a threaded adjustment piece as taught by Klose ‘107 for the purpose of allowing adjustability for a user to provide a braking force that increase or decreases in relation to the amount with which the curtain is wound or unwound.
PNG
media_image1.png
204
888
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As Daus et al ‘230 discloses that the shaft 42 rotates, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to maintain the shaft to be rotated with respect to the adjustment piece as opposed to the adjustment piece rotating with respect to the shaft as disclosed by Klose ‘107. This would help maintain how Daus et al ‘230 is designed to operate.
In regard to claim 22, Daus et al ‘230 disclose a sprocket (36) and chain (34) assembly mounted on the shaft (42) for connecting the shaft to a door assembly for braking the door assembly.
In regard to 23, Daus et al ‘230 disclose a second sprocket (56) and chain (98) assembly mounted to the shaft (42) for connecting the shaft to a second shaft (70).
In regard to claim 24, Daus et al ‘230 disclose a door release mechanism (30) configured to operatively connect to the second shaft (70).
In regard to claim 25, Daus et al ‘230 as modified by Klose ‘107 disclose a limiter (93,94 Klose ‘107) for limiting the amount of force with which the spring (84, Klose ‘107) urges the plate (85, Klose ‘107) against the brake pad (88, Klose ‘107).
In regard to 27, Daus et al ‘230 as modified by Klose ‘107 disclose a seat (shaft with groove) configured to allow the adjustment piece (83) to move axially along the shaft (90) and to prevent the adjustment piece from rotating with the shaft. (as stated above it would be obvious to make the shaft be the rotating part)
In regard to claims 28-29, Daus et al ‘230 disclose a governor (72) mounted on the shaft (42), wherein the governor (72) is configured to selectively rotate with respect to the shaft, remain stationary, and transition between remaining stationary and rotating depending upon a position of a door assembly.
In regard to claim 30, Daus et al ‘230 disclose wherein the governor( 72) comprises a brake drum (hub). (column 5, lines 45-50)
In regard to claim 31, Daus et al ‘230 disclose a method of applying a variable amount of braking force to a door based upon a speed of the door or a position of the door, the method comprising: attaching a brake plate (44) and a brake pad (46) disposed on a first side of the brake plate to a shaft (42), configuring a spring (50) coiled around the shaft to urge the brake plate (44) against the brake pad (46)
Daus et al ‘230 fails to disclose threading an adjustment piece to the shaft on a second side of the brake plate; and configuring the adjustment piece to move axially on the shaft as the shaft rotates with respect to the adjustment piece to thereby vary a force with which the spring urges against the brake plate.
Klose ‘107 discloses threading an adjustment piece (83) to the shaft (90) on a second side of the brake plate (85); configuring the adjustment piece (83) to move axially on the shaft (90) as the adjustment piece (83) rotates with respect to the shaft (90) to thereby vary a force with which the spring (84) urges against the brake plate (85).
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 Daus et al ‘230 to include a threaded adjustment piece as taught by Klose ‘107 for the purpose of allowing adjustability for a user to provide a braking force that increase or decreases in relation to the amount with which the curtain is wound or unwound.
As Daus et al ‘230 discloses that the shaft 42 rotates, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to maintain the shaft to be rotated with respect to the adjustment piece as opposed to the adjustment piece rotating with respect to the shaft as disclosed by Klose ‘107. This would help maintain how Daus et al ‘230 is designed to operate.
In regard to claim 32, Daus et al ‘230 as modified by Klose ‘107 disclose limiting the amount of force with which the spring (84, Klose ‘107) urges against the brake plate (85, Klose ‘107) when the adjustment piece (83, Klose ‘107) moves axially on the shaft (90, Klose ‘107).
In regard to claim 33, Daus et al ‘230 disclose connecting a brake-type governor (72) to the shaft to increase braking force as a rotational speed of the brake drum increases. (column 5, lines 43-64)
Daus et al ‘230 fails to explicitly disclose a brake drum with brake shoes in the brake drum.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known that a brake type governor as disclosed by Daus et al ‘230 could have a brake drum with brake shoes to engage the drum and one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize such as an effective structure for a governor.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s acceptance of examiner’s Official Notice that it is well known in the art to use a brake drum and brake shoes in a brake type governor. 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.
In regard to claim 34, Daus et al ‘230 disclose connecting the shaft (42) to a door release mechanism (30) .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the cone (88) of Klose is a brake pad, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As it is used as part of a braking system, it can be considered to be a brake pad. Applicant’s claim does not structurally distinguish what the brake pad requires.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no disclosure that the spring (84) urges the bearing (85) against (87) or (88) the examiner respectfully disagrees. The nature of a spring is to exert a force. As the threaded element (83) would not be able to move, the spring must force (85) against (88). As such, the claimed limitation is met.
In response to applicant’s argument, it would not be obvious to modify the device of Klose to function in response to rotation of the winding shaft, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the previous rejection, Daus et al ‘230 teaches that the device functions by having a brake pad mounted on the rotating shaft. Klose discloses the principle of adding a threaded adjustment piece over a shaft for the purpose of providing an adjustably variable brake force. Based on a rotation of the device. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that switching which element is fixed and which is rotating would allow the device of Daus et al ‘230 to work as designed, while providing the added benefits as taught by Klose, and would have known to provide the appropriate structure to provide such relative rotation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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