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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 01/08/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The amendment filed 01/08/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The specific location and orientation of the second shaft introduced in the newly submitted fig 9 is not supported in the original disclosure. Applicant points to paragraph [0018] and claim 15 for support. However, these only provide support for the existence of the second shaft, and not for the specific location, orientation, and winding direction depicted in newly introduced fig 9.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 8’. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Interpretation
The examiner notes that the terms “quick-action” and “high speed” do not require specific structural differences beyond the other characteristics claimed as compared to any other door, and are therefore accorded little patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by PG Pub. US 2022/0390211 A1 – Adrain.
Regarding claim 1.
Adrain discloses a quick-action (Paragraph [0168]; Upon detection of a threatening condition, such as detection of a gunshot or a flying projectile, or by activation of a panic button or security system, blinds that are in an open state will be transitioned into a closed, protective state to protect against ballistic projectiles or other threatening materials.) door (Fig 18. See also paragraph [0167]; Referring back to FIG. 18, the roll up barrier system may be used for windows, doors, entryways, or any other desired application in a building or vehicle.) comprising:
a flexible door leaf (1310, fig 18), the door leaf being comprised of a felt material (Paragraph [0056]; The sheets can be comprised from woven yarns, threads, or fibers to form knitted or weaved cloth-like material, or fibers can be arranged in a matted sheet of short or long fibers, like fiber-glass insulation or felt.);
a rotatable shaft configuration (1315, fig 18) for a winding-on of the door leaf (See fig 18); and
a vapor diffusion-proof coating (Paragraph [0077]; Outer layers that are slippery, such as might be coated with polymer coatings like Teflon or other slippery surfaces,) on at least one surface of the felt material, wherein the quick-action door is a high-speed door (Paragraph [0168]; Upon detection of a threatening condition, such as detection of a gunshot or a flying projectile, or by activation of a panic button or security system, blinds that are in an open state will be transitioned into a closed, protective state to protect against ballistic projectiles or other threatening materials.) and is configured as a cold storage door (Examiner notes that this is intended use, and that the door of Adrain is configured to be installed at any portal, including cold storage.) and the at least one surface of the felt material is a warm side of the high-speed door in a closed state (Examiner notes that this is intended use, and that the door of Adrain is configured to be so installed.) and wherein the vapor diffusion-proof coating comprises a flexibility enabling the door leaf to be rolled up, even at temperatures below 0 °C (Examiner notes that the Teflon (PTFE) material recited in Adrain retains its flexibility well below -100°C).
Regarding claim 2.
Adrain discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Adrain further discloses the door leaf has two surfaces (as at 103, fig 2) that face away from each other (See fig 2), and the vapor diffusion-proof coating is provided on each of the two surfaces that face away from each other (Paragraph [0085]; For example, FIG. 2 shows an example laminate 102 having a thicker, inner layer 104 comprised of, for example, matted fibers surrounded by two outer layers 103 of woven material, or a laminated material comprising a plurality of layers of woven or unwoven material.) in the closed state (See fig 2).
Regarding claim 4.
Adrain discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Adrain further discloses the vapor diffusion-proof coating is comprised of a plastic material (Paragraph [0077]; Outer layers that are slippery, such as might be coated with polymer coatings like Teflon or other slippery surfaces,).
Regarding claim 6.
Adrain discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Adrain further discloses the vapor diffusion-proof coating is UV-stable (Paragraph [0077]; Outer layers that are slippery, such as might be coated with polymer coatings like Teflon or other slippery surfaces,) (Examiner notes that PTFE (Teflon) is known for its exceptional UV resistance).
Regarding claim 7.
Adrain discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Adrain further discloses the vapor diffusion-proof coating is bonded to the felt material, and/or is fused to the felt material (Paragraph [0058] These individual sheets might be comprised of … individual fibers formed into a matt … using adhesives or other bonding agents… Such sheets might be sprayed with, or dipped in or passed through, a liquid or powdered adhesive or plastic which … may keep the fibers cohesive and connected together and not be loose and shedding. … The sheets might be pressed using a roller to compress the fibers, and they might be heated sufficiently such as by using heated rollers, arcs, hot air, to set the material and/or bond the fibers together.).
Regarding claim 8.
Adrain discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Adrain further discloses side edges of the felt material are sealed (Paragraph [0098]; FIG. 12 shows a laminate 120 using any of the above laminates disclosed above, but having an additional manufacturing step of providing edge caps 122 to edges of the laminate 121. … These edge caps 122 may be comprised of a glue layer provided on the edges, solidified plastic provided on the edges, a sprayed on material, or may be created by melting and solidifying an edge of the original laminate.).
Regarding claim 9.
Adrain discloses all limitations of claim 8.
Adrain further discloses the side edges of the felt material are sealed with a plastic material (Paragraph [0098]; FIG. 12 shows a laminate 120 using any of the above laminates disclosed above, but having an additional manufacturing step of providing edge caps 122 to edges of the laminate 121. … These edge caps 122 may be comprised of a glue layer provided on the edges, solidified plastic provided on the edges, a sprayed on material, or may be created by melting and solidifying an edge of the original laminate.).
Regarding claim 10.
Adrain discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Adrain further discloses the felt material of the door leaf comprises at least two mutually joined felt material layers (Paragraph [0075]; Alternatively, double or triple layer matted, unwoven sheets might form one laminate all glued, pressed, sewed, or spot welded together, that is later processed to add an outer layer on one or both sides).
Regarding claim 11.
Adrain discloses all limitations of claim 10.
Adrain further discloses the at least two mutually joined felt material layers are bonded together (Paragraph [0075]; Alternatively, double or triple layer matted, unwoven sheets might form one laminate all glued, pressed, sewed, or spot welded together, that is later processed to add an outer layer on one or both sides).
Regarding claim 21.
Adrain discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Adrain further discloses the felt material is a felt made from artificial fibers (Paragraph [0056]; The sheets can be comprised from woven yarns, threads, or fibers to form knitted or weaved cloth-like material, or fibers can be arranged in a matted sheet of short or long fibers, like fiber-glass insulation or felt.).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adrain in view of US Pat. 6,357,507 – Stoebich et al., hereinafter Stoebich.
Regarding claim 3.
Adrain discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Adrain does not disclose the felt material is a felt made from natural fibers.
However, Stoebich teaches the felt material is a felt made from natural fibers (Column 18, lines 39-40; a felt or a fleece (similar to FIG. 13), e.g. of cotton).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door of Adrain with the natural fibers of Stoebich. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of reducing the cost of the door.
Regarding claim 12.
Adrain discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Adrain does not disclose the door leaf comprises a double door leaf with two door leaf sections extending in parallel and spaced apart from one another in the closed state, and wherein, in the closed state, the two door leaf sections are connected to one another at lower ends.
However, Stoebich teaches the door leaf (105a, fig 8) comprises a double door leaf (See fig 8) with two door leaf sections extending in parallel and spaced apart from one another in the closed state (See fig 8), and wherein, in the closed state, the two door leaf sections are connected to one another at lower ends (at 117, fig 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door of Adrain with the double door leaf and rotatable shaft arrangement of the embodiment of 2b in fig 8 of Stoebich. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of improving the ballistic resistance of the door.
Regarding claim 13.
The combination of Adrain and Stoebich teaches all limitations of claim 12.
The combination, in Stoebich, further teaches the connection of the two door leaf sections comprises a curved turn-around section (at 117, fig 8 of Stoebich).
Regarding claim 14.
The combination of Adrain and Stoebich teaches all limitations of claim 12.
The combination, in Stoebich, further teaches a door frame (at 104, fig 8 of Stoebich), wherein one of the door leaf sections (105a, fig 8 of Stoebich) is connected at an upper end to the rotatable shaft configuration (12c, fig 8 of Stoebich), and another of the door leaf sections is fixed at an upper end relative to the door frame (Via 12b, fig 8 of Stoebich).
Regarding claim 15.
The combination of Adrain and Stoebich teaches all limitations of claim 12.
The combination, in Stoebich, further teaches the rotatable shaft configuration (See fig 8) comprises a first rotatable shaft (12c, fig 8 of Stoebich) and a second rotatable shaft (12b, fig 8 of Stoebich) and one of the door leaf sections (105a, fig 8 of Stoebich) is connected at an upper end to the first rotatable shaft (See fig 8 of Stoebich), and another of the door leaf sections is connected at an upper end to the second rotatable shaft (See fig 8 of Stoebich).
Regarding claim 16.
The combination of Adrain and Stoebich teaches all limitations of claim 12.
The combination does not explicitly teach the two door leaf sections are configured to be of different thicknesses.
However, another embodiment of Adrain teaches door leaf sections that are configured to be of different thicknesses (Compare figs 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Adrain and Stoebich with the difference in thickness of the alternate embodiment of Adrain. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of balancing the weight and cost of the door with the expected threats.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adrain in view of US Pat. 4,419,982 – Eckels.
Regarding claim 17.
Adrain discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Adrain further discloses the high-speed door that is configured as a cold storage door, defines the warm side and a cold side (Examiner notes that this recitation is directed to intended use, and that the door of Adrain is configured to be useable as a cold storage door having a warm side and a cold side).
Adrain does not explicitly disclose a door frame against which, in the closed state of the quick-action door, the door leaf abuts so as to form a seal, wherein the door frame, in cooperation with the high-speed door that is configured as a cold storage door, defines the warm side and a cold side.
However, Eckels teaches a frame (16, fig 1) against which, in the closed state (See fig 1) of the quick-action door, the door leaf (12, fig 1) abuts so as to form a seal (See fig 2), wherein the door frame, in cooperation with the high-speed door (See fig 1) that is configured as a cold storage door, defines the warm side and a cold side. (Examiner notes that this recitation is directed to intended use, and that the door of Adrain is configured to be useable as a cold storage door having a warm side and a cold side).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door of Adrain with the magnetic seal of Eckels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of ensuring coverage of the portal in a deployed configuration.
Regarding claim 18.
The combination of Adrain and Eckels teaches all limitations of claim 17.
The combination, in Eckels, teaches permanent magnets (50, fig 1) arranged in or on the door frame (16, fig 1), and ferromagnetic metal elements (44, fig 2) arranged in or on the door leaf (12, fig 1) in a contact region, such that the door leaf is configured to be magnetically held in contact with the door frame (See fig 2).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Adrain and Eckels as applied above, and further in view of PG Pub. US 2021/0355754 A1 – Conboy.
Regarding claim 19.
The combination of Adrain and Eckels teaches all limitations of claim 18.
The combination does not teach the felt material comprises an interior having pockets adjacent to at least one side edge, into which pockets the ferro-magnetic metal elements are inserted.
However, Conboy teaches the material comprises an interior having pockets (76, fig 6) adjacent to at least one side edge (See fig 6), into which pockets the ferro-magnetic metal elements (95, fig 6) are inserted (See fig 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Adrain and Eckels with the pockets of Conboy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of preventing abrasion to the magnetic elements.
Regarding claim 20.
The combination of Adrain, Eckels, and Conboy teaches all limitations of claim 19.
The combination, in Conboy, teaches the pockets (76, fig 6) are closed towards the side edge (of the sheet, 22, fig 6) by a sealant (50, fig 6; Paragraph [0025]; Thus, the one or more fastening lines 50 may comprise stitches, glue/adhesive, staples/rivets or the like, and/or the indicated portions of the sheet 22 may be staked or melted together at the one or more fastening lines 50.) with the ferro-magnetic metal elements (95, fig 6) in the pockets (See fig 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The specific location and orientation of the second shaft introduced in the newly submitted fig 9 is not supported in the original disclosure. Applicant points to paragraph [0018] and claim 15 for support. However, these only provide support for the existence of the second shaft, and not for the specific location, orientation, and winding direction depicted in newly introduced fig 9.
In response to applicant's argument that Adrain fails to disclose a use case as a cold storage door, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, features that would lend themselves to improvements in ballistic performance (doubling thickness of curtains, improving sealing, etc.) would also lead to an improved thermal resistance or insulation. As noted above, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 JOHN W HANES JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8840. 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.
/J.W.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634