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 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) 1-9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 5377738) in view of Hotaling (US 1050459).
Regarding claim 1, Cooper teaches a wind lock (element 38 is considered a wind lock) to hold rods of a closure and prevent removal of the closure from guides of the closure (functional language, this device is capable of this, see fig. 1), comprising:
a body (fig. 1);
a first aperture (through which top rod extends in fig. 1) formed through the body configured to receive a first rod of the rods of the closure (capable of this);
a second aperture (through which bottom rod extends in fig. 1) formed through the body configured to receive a second rod of the rods of the closure (capable of this); and
Cooper does not teach a plurality of flanges protruding from the body, wherein a first pair of the plurality of flanges protrudes from opposite sides of the body and is in-line with the first aperture and a second pair of the plurality of flanges protrudes from the opposite sides of the body and is in-line with the second aperture, wherein each flange of the first pair of the plurality of flanges and the second pair of the plurality of flanges has a tapered shape positionable to nest in a space between rods in a subjacent layer when the closure is coiled about itself and a length of each flange of the first pair of the plurality of flanges and the second pair of the plurality of flanges extends away from the closure.
Hotaling teaches (fig. 6) a wind lock, or movable closure locking element (this element in its pre-bent form as is shown in fig. 6 is considered a wind lock, but could also be simple considered a movable closure element) with a body and a first aperture (26 on left in fig. 6) formed through the body configured to receive a first rod of the rods of the closure (capable of this);
a second aperture (26 on right in fig. 6) formed through the body configured to receive a second rod of the rods of the closure (capable of this); and
a plurality of flanges (there are four flanges) protruding from the body, wherein a first pair (two flanged on the left in fig. 6) of the plurality of flanges protrudes from opposite sides of the body and is in-line with the first aperture (fig. 6) and a second pair (two flanges on the right in fig. 6) of the plurality of flanges protrudes from opposite sides of the body and is in-line with the second aperture (fig. 6), wherein each flange of the first pair of the plurality of flanges and the second pair of the plurality of flanges has a tapered shape (starting at each respective aperture and following the length of each respective flange, it can be said that each flange is tapered as the width of each flange is less at each end compared to at each respective aperture, see fig. 6 of Hotaling) positionable to nest in a space between rods in a subjacent layer (these flanges are able to do this) when the closure is coiled about itself (functional language).
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 Cooper with teachings of Hotaling by modifying the shape of the wind lock with that of Hotaling so that there are a plurality of flanges protruding from the body, wherein a first pair of the plurality of flanges protrudes from opposite sides of the body and is in-line with the first aperture and a second pair of the plurality of flanges protrudes from opposite sides of the body and is in-line with the second aperture, wherein each flange of the first pair of the plurality of flanges and the second pair of the plurality of flanges has a tapered shape positionable in a space between rods in a subjacent layer when the closure is coiled about itself.
This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the shape with the flanges and tapered shape using less material making the device lighter.
It is noted that after this modification, a length of each flange of the first pair of the plurality of flanges and the second pair of the plurality of flanges extends away from the closure.
Regarding claim 2, modified Cooper teaches that the first pair (two flanged on the left in fig. 6 of Hotaling) of the plurality of flanges, comprises: a first flange (top) formed on a first side of the body; and a second flange (bottom) formed on a second side of the body, wherein the second side is opposite the first side and the first aperture is between the first flange and the second flange (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, modified Cooper teaches that the second pair (on right in fig. 6 of Hotaling) of the plurality of flanges comprises: a third flange (top) formed on the first side of the body; and a fourth flange (bottom) formed on the second side of the body, wherein the second aperture is between the third flange and the fourth flange (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, modified Cooper teaches a first space is formed between the first flange and the third flange and a second space is formed between the second flange and the fourth flange (as is shown in fig. 6 of Hotaling).
Regarding claim 5, modified Cooper teaches a respective end of each one of the plurality of flanges is tapered as the each one of the plurality of flanges extends away from the body (after the modification to claim 1 above this is true).
Regarding claim 6, modified Cooper teaches that each one of the plurality of flanges, comprises: an end wall (see annotated fig. 6 below, note that after the claim 1 modification that the inner and outer walls are tapered); an outer wall (annotated fig. 6) positioned at an outer angle relative to a first end of the end wall; and an inner wall (annotated fig. 6) positioned at an inner angle relative to a second end of the end wall (see modification to claim 1 above).
PNG
media_image1.png
376
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, modified Cooper does not explicitly teach that the inner angle of each one of the plurality of flanges is greater that the outer angle of each one of the plurality of flanges.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that the configuration of a claimed object was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. Therefore, 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 further modify Cooper so that the inner angle of each one of the plurality of flanges is greater that the outer angle of each one of the plurality of flanges. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a shape as required by a designer.
Regarding claim 8, modified Cooper does not explicitly teach that the inner angle of each one of the plurality of flanges is less than that the outer angle of each one of the plurality of flanges .
The examiner notes that the courts have held that the configuration of a claimed object was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. Therefore, 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 further modify Cooper so that the inner angle of each one of the plurality of flanges is less than that the outer angle of each one of the plurality of flanges. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a shape as required by a designer.
Regarding claim 9, modified Cooper teaches that the inner angle of each one of the plurality of flanges and the outer angle of each one of the plurality of flanges are about 70 degrees to 120 degrees (after the modification above, they are considered about in this range).
Regarding claim 21, modified Cooper does not explicitly teach that the inner angle of each one of the plurality of flanges is equal to the outer angle of each one of the plurality of flanges.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that the configuration of a claimed object was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. Therefore, 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 further modify Cooper so that the inner angle of each one of the plurality of flanges is equal to the outer angle of each one of the plurality of flanges. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a shape as required by a designer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “The amended claim now recites that the tapered flange is “positionable to nest between rods in a subsequent layer when the closure is coiled.” This limitation is not taught or suggested by the combination of Cooper and Hotaling. Hotaling is not a coiling closure and has no subsequent layers for any part to nest within. Cooper, while disclosing a rolling shutter, fails to teach or suggest a wind lock with flanges shaped to nest within the spaces of a subsequent coiled layer.
Hotaling addresses the field of lightweight, spring-braked window curtain fixtures, where the primary problem is providing gentle braking against gravity. The present invention, however, resides in the field of heavy-duty, rolling security closures, where the problem is preventing structural failure under high transverse wind loads. One of skill in the art for rolling door and grille art would not have been motivated to look to the art of window shade hardware to control vertical to solve a problem of wind load retention when forces are perpendicular to the direction of the rolling grille curtain. ”
The examiner note that all the limitations as claimed are taught by the rejection above. Hotaling is found to modify Cooper, and is found to teach a plurality of flanges (there are four flanges) protruding from the body, wherein a first pair (two flanged on the left in fig. 6) of the plurality of flanges protrudes from opposite sides of the body and is in-line with the first aperture (fig. 6) and a second pair (two flanges on the right in fig. 6) of the plurality of flanges protrudes from opposite sides of the body and is in-line with the second aperture (fig. 6), wherein each flange of the first pair of the plurality of flanges and the second pair of the plurality of flanges has a tapered shape (starting at each respective aperture and following the length of each respective flange, it can be said that each flange is tapered as the width of each flange is less at each end compared to at each respective aperture, see fig. 6 of Hotaling) positionable to nest in a space between rods in a subjacent layer (these flanges are able to do this) when the closure is coiled about itself (functional language).
In response to applicant's argument that Hotaling is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Hotaling is found to be a movable closure with specific components and hardware. It is noted that Cooper and the instant invention are also both found to be a movable closure with specific components and hardware.
The applicant argues that “Applicants object to proposed definition of “wind lock” from the ordinary meaning that one of skill in the art of overhead doors would apply to this term. Under MPEP Sec. 2111(l), while the definition can be given the broadest reasonable interpretation, an interpretation still must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning those skilled in the art would reach. One skilled in the art for the field of overhead coiling doors understands a "wind lock" to be a heavy-duty, structural retention member designed to prevent a door curtain from blowing out/forcibly being pulled out of its side guides under extreme wind loads, predominately from wind forces acting perpendicular to the curtain/door structure. Equating Hotaling’s Fig. 6—designed merely to hold a vertical window curtain in place against gravity or vertical spring tension —with an industrial "wind lock" is an unreasonableinterpretation.
Hotaling's blank 23 is a screen-retaining component and is not structurally or functionally designed as an equivalent of a wind lock for a coiled grille. In Hotaling, the blank secures screen fabric and its apertures 26 are adapted for fastening pins or rivets—not to receive rods used as a coiled grille and withstand perpendicular wind forces on the grille curtain. (See Hotaling, p. 3, col. 1, ll. 2-3).”
The examiner notes that broadly speaking, the element 23 of Hotaling can be considered a wind lock, as the device is designed to hold components in the presence of forces. Wind can cause a force on the device, making the term wind lock a broad, but still reasonable term to describe the component. It is also noted that the term “movable closure locking element” could be used to describe the component, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply teachings of this element to the wind lock of Cooper.
The applicant argues that “Applicants object to the office action’s proposed definition of “tapered” from the ordinary meaning that one of skill in the art of overhead doors would apply to this term. Under MPEP Sec. 2111(l), while the definition can be given the broadest reasonable interpretation, an interpretation still must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning those skilled in the art would reach. One of ordinary skill in the art would describe the shape in Hotaling's Figure 6 as a rectangular extension with a rounded corner. They would not describe it as "tapered” as the edges or the resulting walls do not converge to form a taper in the ordinary meaning. The blank in Hotaling's Figure 6 are depicted with parallel sides. The inner and outer edges run parallel to each other along the entire length. A rounded corner is an arc connecting perpendicular sides. A rounded corner is not a tapered structure. A taper would be known to be a structure where the sides are non-parallel and converging.
If the ordinary meaning for wind lock and taper are appropriately applied, neither Cooper nor Hotaling teaches or suggests the claimed invention. Additionally, amended Claim 1 requires that “...each flange of the first pair of the plurality of flanges and the second pair of the plurality of flanges has a tapered shape positionable to nest in a space between rods in a subjacent layer when the closure is coiled about itself..."
Cooper teaches a wind lock (38) designed to lie flat against a coiling lath. It does not teach or suggest flanges shaped to nest between the gaps of a subjacent layer of a coiled closure. Hotaling does not disclose a coiling grille closure with subjacent layers of a coiled structure comprising rods. Its blank 23 serves as a static fixture head for a vertical sliding shade. It has no coiling nesting capability. As such, neither Cooper nor Hotaling alone or in combination teach each and every element of claim 1. Applicants respectfully request that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be withdrawn.”
The examiner notes that broadly speaking, Hotaling can be considered to be tapered as required by the claim. The following definition (4a) is found from thefreedictionary.com.
PNG
media_image2.png
152
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that the above combination teaches all the limitations as claimed.
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 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