DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final Office Action is in response to the response to amendment filed 5/6/2026.
Status of the claims: Claims 21-37 are hereby examined below.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 5/6/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that as now amended, claim 31 requires the wall separating conduits as is found in claim 28. This is found persuasive and the previous restriction requirement filed on 4/2/2026 is withdrawn and all claims are being examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 31 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,371,285. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each require a first and second conduit, a heater in fluid with the first and second conduits, a heat transfer wall defining part of the second conduit and having heat transfer fins with two side supports comprising a thermally insulating material forming three defining a space to encompass a roll up door wherein no heat transfer fins extends from the heat transfer wall into the space.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 recites “no fins extend”. For consistency, examiner presumes this should read – no heat transfer fins --.
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 recites: “the fins”. For consistency, examiner presumes this should read – the heat transfer fins --.
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 recites: “the fins”. For consistency, examiner presumes this should read – the heat transfer fins --.
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 recites: “the fins”. For consistency, examiner presumes this should read – the heat transfer fins --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-30 are allowed.
Claims 31-37 would be allowable upon filing of a Terminal Disclaimer, as set forth above in this Office action.
Although the prior art references of record show some similar features of applicant's claimed invention, the fail to show a method and system for heating a door guide area. As set forth in the parent application 17/025292, the best reference of Schumacher US 9,429,353 discloses a method for heating a door guide area, but fails to teach that no heat transfer fins extend from the heat transfer wall into the space defined by the two opposing side supports and the heat transfer wall. Schumacher ‘353 does not disclose channeling the heater air in first and second opposite directions and routing the heated air laterally across the first conduit. The examiner can find no proper motivation to combine the references of record to produce applicant's claimed device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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