DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/640,589.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are examined.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 10, 11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baehr (U.S. Patent 3,987,600).
Regarding claim 1, Baehr discloses a cladded door apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
a door (the door of figure 1 which comprises of the core not depicted but provided therewith, or, alternatively, may be the core and also include the frame with elements #11 and #12);
one or more adhesive connectors (the epoxy adhesive used to attach the facings #21 thereon, as taught in col. 6, ll. 61-64) one or more door cladding members (#21) operatively coupled to the door using the one or more adhesive connectors (see figure 3 and col. 6, ll. 61-64);
wherein the one or more adhesive connectors are configured to disengage during a fire such that the one or more door cladding members uncouple from the door (due to use of epoxy adhesive for such adhesive connectors, such adhesive comprises of a lower temperature at which it will decouple, where col. 6, ll. 61-64 disclose such an adhesive is to cause delamination of the facings from the frame at a certain point of the fire and thus meets such configured to language as broadly defined).
Regarding claim 6, Baehr discloses the one or more adhesive connectors comprise an adhesive sealant (the epoxy adhesive is considered an adhesive sealant as broadly defined).
Regarding claim 10, Baehr discloses one or more cladding support members (#11 and #12) operatively coupled between the door and the one or more door cladding members (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, Baehr discloses the one or more cladding support members comprise a plurality of vertical (#12) and horizontal (#11) cladding support members that form a framework (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Baehr discloses the one or more cladding support members offset the one or more door cladding members a maximum of 1.75 inches from the door or a door frame (the cladding support members are configured to allow the cladding members #21 to abut and sit flush with the core material therebetween, and thus meets such a maximum of 1.75 inches as broadly defined).
Regarding claim 15, Baehr discloses the one or more door cladding members comprise non-combustible materials (col. 4, ll. 65-67 disclose metal can be used for such cladding members #21, which is considered non-combustible).
Regarding claim 16, Baehr discloses the one or more door cladding members comprise combustible materials (col. 4, ll. 61-64 disclose a wood veneer, which is considered combustible, can be used for such facings #21).
Regarding claim 17, Baehr discloses a method of installing a cladded door apparatus, the method comprising:
assembling one or more adhesive connectors (the epoxy adhesive used to attach the facings #21 thereon, as taught in col. 6, ll. 61-64) to a door (the door of figure 1 which comprises of the core not depicted but provided therewith, or, alternatively, comprises the core and the frame members #11/12 that can be included as well) and one or more door cladding members (#21), wherein the one or more adhesive connectors are configured to disengage during a fire such that the one or more door cladding members uncouple from the door (due to use of epoxy adhesive for such adhesive connectors, such adhesive comprises of a lower temperature at which it will decouple, where col. 6, ll. 61-64 disclose such an adhesive is to cause delamination of the facings from the frame at a certain point of the fire and thus meets such configured to language as broadly defined).
Regarding claim 18, Baehr discloses assembling one or more cladding support members (#11/12) to the door or the one or more door cladding members (the members #11/12 are assembled to the door cladding members) using the one or more adhesive connectors or other connectors (see figure 3, where the adhesive is used to attach the door cladding members #21 to the support members #11 and #12).
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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baehr in view of Thomas et al. (U.S. Publication 2014/0054107).
Regarding claim 2, Baehr discloses the claimed invention except specifically for the cladding door apparatus is a fire rated door that meets a 90-minute rating and is in compliance with UL 10C, NFPA 252, or CAN/ULC S104. Baehr does disclose in col. 4, ll. 29-56 that the core material can be provided as any material needed in order to provide the appropriate fire resistance when exposed to a fire. Thomas et al. disclose an acoustical door structure comprising of a core #208, damping layers #206, #210, base layers #204/212, and facings #202 and #214 attached on opposite faces of the door assembly. See figure 2. Paragraph 19 of Thomas et al. discloses the layers can be attached to one another using adhesives, such as hot melt adhesives, where paragraph 28 discloses the structure and materials of the assembly allows the door to have a 90 min. rating when tested to NFPA 252, CAN 5104, and UL 10C. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the door assembly of Baehr so as to comprise of a 90-minute rating and is in compliance with UL 10C, NFPA 252, or CAN/ULC S104, such as by using the material or structure for the core of the door as taught in Thomas et al., in order to allow the door to be used within certain situations and meet building codes based on its use and location.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baehr in view of Thomas et al. and Minke et al. (WO 03/091510).
Regarding claim 3, though Baehr in view of Thomas et al. do not specifically disclose the rating meets a 180 minute rating, Minke et al. teach that ratings of up to 180 minutes are required for commercial fire doors and thus it would have been obvious to have strengthened the door assembly of Baehr in view of Thomas et al. to meet a 180 minute rating, as taught in Minke et al., in order to allow the door for use within commercial settings and thus meet the building codes as needed.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baehr in view of Rusek et al. (U.S. Publication 2003/0041544).
Regarding claim 4, Baehr discloses use of an epoxy adhesive rather than an adhesive tape for the adhesive connectors. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Rusek et al., that epoxy resins, hot melt adhesives, PVA glues and adhesive tapes are known adhesives A3 substitutable for one another in order to attach a sheathing material #10 to a framing surface F. See paragraph 45 and figure 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an adhesive tape for the adhesive of Baehr, as taught in Rusek et al., in order to provide the necessary strength for holding the type of cladding material used for such outer surfaces of the door and also since the simple substitution of one known adhesive for another would have yielded the same predictable result of adhering the cladding to the frame element as needed.
Regarding claim 5, Baehr in view of Rusek et al. render obvious the adhesive tape has a thickness ranging from 0.035 to 0.055 inches (As explained above, Baehr teaches that such facing sheets can be thin wood veneers or metal layers, where the adhesive thickness would be based on the strength required to hold such a cladding material to the core of the door. Furthermore, In re Aller held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the thickness of the adhesive tape of Baehr in view of Rusek et al. to be between 0.035 and 0.055 inches in order to provide a cost effective yet strong enough adhesive to hold the cladding to the assembly and also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).).
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baehr in view of Fultz et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0299347) and 3M VHB Tape 4991 (Technical Data Sheet for 3M VHB Tape 4991, Oct. 2022, obtained from https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/2369600O/3m-vhb-tape-4991-technical-data-sheet.pdf?&fn=3m-iatd-anz-vhb-tape-4991-tds.pdf).
Regarding claims 7-9, Baehr discloses the claimed invention except specifically for the adhesive comprises a static shear strength, in a 0.5 square inch sample, when tested at 72F that supports 800 to 1200 grams, as defined in claim 7, 300 to 600 grams at 150F, as defined in claim 8, and 150-350 grams at 200F, as defined in claim 9. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Fultz et al., that 3m VHB tape is a known structural adhesive tape used to attach cladding elements #13/14 to a plate #211 of the door structure. See paragraph 107. Though Fultz et al. do not disclose the exact VHB tape name used from the 3M family lineup of VHB tapes, 3M manufactures tapes of multiple thicknesses and compositions in order to meet the end needs of the end user. 3M VHB Tape 4991 is a known tape used to create a permanent bond that replaces mechanical fasteners or liquid adhesives and can be bonded to metals, plastics, and other substrates. See page 1. The static shear strength of such a tape at 23C/73F is 1000g, on a stainless steel substrate, at 66C/150F is 500g, and at 93C/200F is 500g, so as to comprise of a maximum temperature of 93C/200F where the tape supports at least a 250g load in static shear. See pages 3 and 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a 3M VHB adhesive for the adhesive component of Baehr, such as taught in Fultz et al., in order to adhere the cladding to the core of the door assembly with specific strength characteristics and also since 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 (CCPA 1960). Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a 3M VHB adhesive tape for the adhesive connectors of Baehr in view of Fultz et al. to comprise of the static shear strength as defined in claims 7-9 at specific temperatures, such as by using 3M VHB Tape 4991, in order to use known adhesive tapes to provide the specific strength based on temperature as needed by the end user, since 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, and also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).); In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 10, 12-14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baehr in view of Daniels et al. (WO 2014005056).
Regarding claim 10, when the outer stiles #11 and #12 of Baehr are considered part of the door, Baehr would thus not be considered to comprise of cladding support members coupled between the door and the one or more door cladding members. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Daniels et al., that such fire rated panels can comprise of a core #100 and outer cladding members #1102/1104, where brackets #1502 function as cladding support members to attach such cladding members to the core, such as with glue. See figures 15A and 15B and page 18, ll. 1-12. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have attached the cladding members of Baehr to the core assembly of the panel using cladding support member brackets, as taught in Daniels et al., in order to make manufacturing of the door easier by allowing for proper alignment of the cladding with the door while also increasing the fire resistance at the edges of the door.
Regarding claim 12, Baehr in view of Daniels et al. render obvious the one or more cladding support members comprise a plurality of brackets operatively coupled between the door and the one or more door cladding members (when Baehr is modified to include cladding support member brackets as taught in Daniels et al., such brackets would be positioned between the door and the cladding members as depicted in figure 15B of Daniels et al.).
Regarding claim 13, Baehr in view of Daniels et al. render obvious the one or more cladding support members offset the one or more door cladding members a minimum of 0.25 inches from the door or a door frame (Daniels disclose such brackets can comprise of a height of 11/16 inches (page 17, ll. 32-33), where such brackets offset the outer edges of the cladding members from the door/door frame by such a distance, where such features would be provided within Baehr as explained above).
Regarding claim 14, Baehr in view of Daniels et al. render obvious the one or more cladding support members offset the one or more door cladding members a maximum of 1.75 inches from the door or a door frame (Daniels disclose such brackets can comprise of a height of 11/16 inches (page 17, ll. 32-33), where such brackets offset the outer edges of the cladding embers from the door/door frame by such a distance and thus below the maximum as defined, where such features would be provided within Baehr as explained above).
Regarding claim 18, when the door of Baehr is considered to comprise of both the core and the stiles #11 and #12, Baehr would not be considered to comprise of cladding support members coupled between the door and the one or more door cladding members. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Daniels et al., that such fire rated panels can comprise of a core #100 and outer cladding members #1102/1104, where brackets #1502 function as cladding support members to attach such cladding members to the core, such as with glue. See figures 15A and 15B and page 18, ll. 1-12. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have attached the cladding members of Baehr to the core assembly of the panel using cladding support member brackets, as taught in Daniels et al., in order to make manufacturing of the door easier by allowing for proper alignment of the cladding with the door.
Regarding claim 19, Baehr in view of Daniels et al. render obvious the one or more cladding support members offset the one or more door cladding members a minimum of 0.25 inches from the door or a door frame (Daniels disclose such brackets can comprise of a height of 11/16 inches (page 17, ll. 32-33), where such brackets offset the outer edges of the cladding members from the door/door frame by such a distance, where such features would be provided within Baehr as explained above), and wherein the one or more cladding support members offset the one or more door cladding members a maximum of 1.75 inches from the door or a door frame (Daniels disclose such brackets can comprise of a height of 11/16 inches (page 17, ll. 32-33), where such brackets offset the outer edges of the cladding embers from the door/door frame by such a distance and thus below the maximum distance as defined, where such features would be provided within Baehr as explained above).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baehr in view of Thomas et al., Fultz et al., and 3M VHB Tape 4991.
Regarding claim 20, Baehr discloses the claimed invention except for the cladded door apparatus is a fire rated door that meets a 90-minute rating and is in compliance with UL 10C, NFPA 252, or CAN/ULC S104. Baehr does disclose in col. 4, ll. 29-56 that the core material can be provided as any material needed in order to provide the appropriate fire resistance when exposed to a fire. Thomas et al. disclose an acoustical door structure comprising of a core #208, damping layers #206, #210, base layers #204/212, and facings #202 and #214 attached on opposite faces of the door assembly. See figure 2. Paragraph 19 of Thomas et al. discloses the layers can be attached to one another using adhesives, such as hot melt adhesives, where paragraph 28 discloses the structure and materials of the assembly allows the door to have a 90 min. rating when tested to NFPA 252, CAN 5104, and UL 10C. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the door assembly of Baehr so as to comprise of a 90-minute rating and is in compliance with UL 10C, NFPA 252, or CAN/ULC S104, such as by using the material or structure for the core of the door as taught in Thomas et al., in order to allow the door to be used within certain situations and meet building codes based on its use and location.
Furthermore, Baehr discloses the claimed invention except specifically for the adhesive comprises a static shear strength, in a 0.5 square inch sample, when tested at 72F that supports 800 to 1200 grams, 300 to 600 grams at 150F, and 150-350 grams at 200F. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Fultz et al., that 3m VHB tape is a known structural adhesive tape used to attach cladding elements #13/14 to a plate #211 of the door structure. See paragraph 107. Though Fultz et al. do not disclose the exact VHB tape name used from the 3M family lineup, 3M manufactures VHB tapes of multiple thicknesses and compositions in order to meet the end needs of the end user. 3M VHB Tape 4991 is a known tape used to create a permanent bond that replaces mechanical fasteners or liquid adhesives and can be bonded to metals, plastics, and other substrates. See page 1. The static shear strength of such a tape at 23C/73F is 1000g, on a stainless steel substrate, at 66C/150F is 500g, and at 93C/200F is 500g, so as to comprise of a maximum temperature of 93C/200F where the tape supports at least a 250g load in static shear. See pages 3 and 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a 3M VHB adhesive for the adhesive component of Baehr, such as taught in Fultz et al., in order to adhere the cladding to the core of the door assembly with specific strength characteristics and also since 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 (CCPA 1960). Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a 3M VHB adhesive tape for the adhesive connectors of Baehr in view of Fultz et al. to comprise of the static shear strength as defined at specific temperatures, such as by using 3M VHB Tape 4991, in order to use known adhesive tapes to provide the specific strength based on temperature as needed by the end user, since 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, and also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).); In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Brian D Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635