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 .
Specification
The specification received 8/28/2026 is accepted.
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 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,993,980. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because orienting the minor second and third segments to be perpendicular to the required segments would be an obvious modification.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,993,980.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,993,980.
Dependent claims are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
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) 1-2, and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farooq (US 20030041978) in view of Kroie (US 6834468).
Regarding claim 1, Farooq teaches a slat (14) for a closure system, comprising:
a single major hook (20);
a single minor hook (at 24); and
a body disposed between the single major hook and the single minor hook (fig. 1), wherein the single major hook (20), comprises:
a major first segment (at 22) disposed substantially perpendicular to the body (fig. 1);
a major second segment (vertical segment of 20 attached to element 22) that is substantially perpendicular to the major first segment and substantially parallel to the body;
a major third segment (hook itself),
wherein the single minor hook, comprises:
a minor first segment (bottom of this hook) substantially perpendicular to the body (fig. 1);
a minor second segment (portion that connects to the first segment that extends substantially perpendicular to it in fig. 1) that is substantially perpendicular to the minor first segment and substantially parallel to the body.
Farooq does not teach that the major third segment is substantially perpendicular to the major second segment and substantially parallel to the major first segment; a major fourth segment that is substantially perpendicular to the major third segment and substantially parallel to the major second segment, nor a minor third segment that is substantially perpendicular to the minor second segment and the major fourth segment and is substantially parallel to the minor first segment.
Kroie teaches (figure 1) interconnected panels (10) with a major hook and a minor
hook and a body disposed between (see annotated figure 1 below), the major hook further comprises: a major first segment disposed substantially perpendicular to the body; a major second segment that is substantially perpendicular to the major first segment and substantially parallel to the body, a major third segment that is substantially perpendicular to the major second segment and substantially parallel to the major first segment, and a major fourth segment that is substantially perpendicular to the major third segment and substantially parallel to the major second segment, wherein the single minor hook comprises: a minor first segment substantially perpendicular to the body; a minor second segment that is substantially perpendicular to the minor first segment and substantially parallel to the body; a minor third segment that is substantially perpendicular to the minor second segment and the major fourth segment and is substantially parallel to the minor first segment (all is shown in annotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
976
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Farooq with teachings of Kroie by replacing the shape of the hooks with that of Kroie so that the major third segment is substantially perpendicular to the major second segment and substantially parallel to the major first segment; a major fourth segment that is substantially perpendicular to the major third segment and substantially parallel to the major second segment, and a minor third segment that is substantially perpendicular to the minor second segment and the major fourth segment and is substantially parallel to the minor first segment. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a strong connection between the slats that prevents accidental disengagement.
Regarding claim 2, modified Farooq teaches that the major fourth segment and the minor third segment are terminal ends (after the modification above, the major fourth section extends to the terminal end).
Regarding claim 4, Farooq teaches a curtain (made of the slats), comprising:
a first slat (top 14 in fig. 3), wherein the first slat comprises:
a first single major hook (20);
a first single minor hook (at 24); and
a first body disposed between the first single major hook and the first single minor hook (fig. 3), wherein the first single major hook, comprises:
a major first segment (at 22) disposed substantially perpendicular to the first body (fig. 1);
a major second segment (vertical segment of 20 attached to element 22) that is substantially perpendicular to the major first segment and substantially parallel to the first body;
a major third segment (hook itself); and
a second slat (14 directly below the top slat), wherein the second slat, comprises:
a second single major hook (same as top slat);
a second single minor hook; and
a second body disposed between the second single major hook and the second single minor hook, wherein the second single minor hook, comprises:
a minor first segment (bottom of hook) substantially perpendicular to the second body (fig. 1);
a minor second segment (portion that connects to the first segment that extends substantially perpendicular to it in fig. 1) that is substantially perpendicular to the minor first segment and substantially parallel to the second body; and
wherein the first slat is coupled to the second slat by nesting the second single minor hook of the second slat inside of the first single major hook of the first slat to form a bead.
Farooq does not teach that the major third segment is substantially perpendicular to the major second segment and substantially parallel to the major first segment; nor does it teach a major fourth segment that is substantially perpendicular to the major third segment and substantially parallel to the major second segment, nor does it teach a minor third segment that is substantially perpendicular to the minor second segment and is substantially parallel to the minor first segment, nor that when the slats are coupled, the minor third segment of the second single minor hook is perpendicular to the major fourth segment of the first single major hook.
Kroie teaches (figure 1) interconnected panels (10) with a major hook and a minor
hook and a body disposed between (see annotated figure 1), the major hook further comprises: a major first segment disposed substantially perpendicular to the body; a major second segment that is substantially perpendicular to the major first segment and substantially parallel to the body, a major third segment that is substantially perpendicular to the major second segment and substantially parallel to the major first segment, and a major fourth segment that is substantially perpendicular to the major third segment and substantially parallel to the major second segment, wherein the single minor hook comprises: a minor first segment substantially perpendicular to the body; a minor second segment that is substantially perpendicular to the minor first segment and substantially parallel to the body; a minor third segment that is substantially perpendicular to the minor second segment and the major fourth segment and is substantially parallel to the minor first segment (all is shown in fig. 1 below).
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 Farooq with teachings of Kroie by replacing the shape of the hooks with that of Kroie so that the major third segment is substantially perpendicular to the major second segment and substantially parallel to the major first segment; a major fourth segment is substantially perpendicular to the major third segment and substantially parallel to the major second segment, a minor third segment that is substantially perpendicular to the minor second segment and is substantially parallel to the minor first segment. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a strong connection between the slats that prevents accidental disengagement.
It is noted that after this modification, when the slats are coupled, the minor third segment of the second single minor hook is perpendicular to the major fourth segment of the first single major hook.
Regarding claim 5, modified Farooq teaches that the minor third segment of the second single minor hook is positioned between the major second segment and the major fourth segment of the first single major hook (after the modification above).
Regarding claim 6, modified Farooq teaches that the minor first segment of the second single minor hook is adjacent to and parallel to the major first segment of the first single major hook when the second single minor hook is nested in the first single major hook (after modification above, see fig. 3 of Farooq and annotated fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, modified Farooq teaches that the minor second segment of the second single minor hook is adjacent to and parallel to the major second segment of the first single major hook when the second single minor hook is nested in the first single major hook (after modification above, see fig. 3 of Farooq and annotated fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, modified Farooq teaches that the minor third segment of the second single minor hook is adjacent to and parallel to the major third segment of the first single major hook when the second single minor hook is nested in the first single major hook (after modification above, see fig. 3 of Farooq and annotated fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, modified Farooq teaches that the major second segment of the first single major hook forms an outermost face of the bead that is extended away from the first body of the first slat (after the modification, in the same way as the instant application, as it extends away from the far right wall of the body).
Regarding claim 10, modified Farooq teaches that the major fourth segment of the first single major hook and the minor third segment of the second single minor hook are terminal ends (after the modification above, the major fourth section extends to the terminal end).
Claim(s) 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farooq (US 20030041978) in view of Kroie (US 6834468) as applied above, and further in view of Lowry (US 4979533).
Regarding claim 3, modified Farooq does not explicitly teach a damper coupled to the single major hook or the single minor hook.
Lowry teaches a slat for a closure system with a damper (44) coupled to a single minor hook (fig. 1). 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 Farooq with teachings of Lowry so that there is a damper coupled to the single major hook or the single minor hook. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of dampening movement, resulting in a quieter user experience.
Regarding claim 11, modified Farooq does not teach a damper coupled to the first single major hook or the second single minor hook.
Lowry teaches a slat for a closure system with a damper (44) coupled to a single minor hook (fig. 1). 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 Farooq with teachings of Lowry so that there a damper coupled to the first single major hook or the second single minor hook. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of dampening movement, resulting in a quieter user experience.
Claim(s) 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farooq (US 20030041978) in view of Kroie (US 6834468) as applied above, and further in view Hoffman (US 5515902).
Regarding claim 12, Farooq teaches (figures 1, and 2-4) a closure system (20), comprising:
a guide assembly (40) comprising
a channel (42) defined by a first guide wall (the top 58) and a second guide wall (the bottom 58);
a retention bar (top 56) extending into the channel from the first guide wall (figure 4);
a plurality of slats (14, figure 3, this plurality of slats is not including the top three slats), each slat of the plurality of slats configured to interlock with another of the plurality of slats to form a curtain (figure 3 shows the slats connected to form a curtain) comprising a plurality of beads (a major and minor hook connected is considered a bead, see below), each slat (14) having a retention groove (30) with at least one sidewall configured (see annotated fig. 4 below) and dimensioned to engage the retention bar (56) to retain each slat within the channel; and
a bottom slat (the bottommost slat),
wherein each slat of the plurality of slats includes a single minor hook (at 24), a single major hook (20), and a body disposed between the single minor hook and the single major hook,
the single major hook comprises:
a major first segment (at 22) disposed substantially perpendicular to the body (fig. 1);
a major second segment (vertical segment of 20 attached to element 22) that is substantially perpendicular to the major first segment and substantially parallel to the body;
a major third segment (hook itself),
wherein the single minor hook comprises:
a minor first segment (bottom of hook) substantially perpendicular to the body (fig. 1);
a minor second segment (portion that connects to the first segment that extends substantially perpendicular to it in fig. 1) that is substantially perpendicular to the minor first segment and substantially parallel to the body; and
wherein each one of the plurality of beads is formed by nesting a respective single minor hook of a first slat of the plurality of slats into a respective single major hook of a second slat of the plurality of slats (fig. 3).
Farooq does not teach that the bottom slat is configured to resist prying, that the major third segment is substantially perpendicular to the major second segment and substantially parallel to the major first segment; nor does it teach a major fourth segment that is substantially perpendicular to the major third segment and substantially parallel to the major second segment, nor a minor third segment that is substantially perpendicular to the minor second segment and is substantially parallel to the minor first segment, nor that each of the plurality of beads is such that the minor third segment of the respective single minor hook of the first slat is perpendicular to the major fourth segment of the respective single major hook of the second slat.
Hoffman teaches (figure 2) a rolling shutter assembly with a bottom slat (the lowermost slat 11) that is configured to resist prying (every slat rests upon a lower slat making the configuration resistant to prying as there is not any vertical movement possible between individual slats, and the bottom slat bears the weight of the slats above it), and the bottom slat (the lower most slat) bears a weight of a majority of the plurality of slats when the closure system is in the extended position (figure 2 shows each slat bearing the weight of the slats above it in the extended position) the minor hook configured and dimensioned to be disposed within the major hook of an adjoining slat in a disengaged position (as shown in fig. 2) and engages the major hook of the adjoining slat when the closure system is moving (as shown in fig. 1, described in column 4 lines 20-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farooq by having the bottom slat be configured to resist prying, and having the bottom slat bear a weight of a majority of the plurality of slats when the closure system is in the extended position, with the minor hook configured and dimensioned to be disposed within the major hook of an adjoining slat in a disengaged position and engages the major hook of the adjoining slat when the closure system is moving as is all taught by Hoffman. These alterations provide the predictable and expected results of a more secure door that offers more protection.
Kroie teaches (figure 1) interconnected panels (10) with a major hook and a minor
hook and a body disposed between (see annotated figure 1), the major hook further comprises: a major first segment disposed substantially perpendicular to the body; a major second segment that is substantially perpendicular to the major first segment and substantially parallel to the body, a major third segment that is substantially perpendicular to the major second segment and substantially parallel to the major first segment, and a major fourth segment that is substantially perpendicular to the major third segment and substantially parallel to the major second segment, wherein the single minor hook comprises: a minor first segment substantially perpendicular to the body; a minor second segment that is substantially perpendicular to the minor first segment and substantially parallel to the body; a minor third segment that is substantially perpendicular to the minor second segment and the major fourth segment and is substantially parallel to the minor first segment (all is shown in fig. 1 below).
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 Farooq with teachings of Kroie by replacing the shape of the hooks with that of Kroie so that the major third segment is substantially perpendicular to the major second segment and substantially parallel to the major first segment; a major fourth segment is substantially perpendicular to the major third segment and substantially parallel to the major second segment, a minor third segment that is substantially perpendicular to the minor second segment and is substantially parallel to the minor first segment. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a strong connection between the slats that prevents accidental disengagement.
It is noted that after this modification, when the slats are coupled, each of the plurality of beads is such that the minor third segment of the respective single minor hook of the first slat is perpendicular to the major fourth segment of the respective single major hook of the second slat.
Regarding claim 13, modified Farooq teaches that the minor third segment of the respective single minor hook of the first slat is positioned between the major second segment and the major fourth segment of the respective single major hook of the second slat (after the modification above).
Regarding claim 14, modified Farooq teaches that the minor first segment of the respective single minor hook of the first slat is adjacent to and parallel to the major first segment of the respective single major hook of the second slat when the respective single minor hook of the first slat is nested in the respective single major hook of the second slat (after modification above, see fig. 3 of Farooq and annotated fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 15, modified Farooq teaches that the minor second segment of the respective single minor hook of the first slat is adjacent to and parallel to the major second segment of the respective single major hook of the second slat when the respective single minor hook of the first slat is nested in the respective single major hook of the second slat (after modification above, see fig. 3 of Farooq and annotated fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, modified Farooq teaches that the minor third segment of the respective single minor hook of the first salt is adjacent to and parallel to the major third segment of the respective single major hook of the second slat when the respective single minor hook of the first slat is nested in the respective single major hook of the second slat (after modification above, see fig. 3 of Farooq and annotated fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 17 modified Farooq teaches that the major second segment of the single major hook forms an outermost face of the plurality of beads that is extended away from the body of the plurality of slats (after the modification, in the same way as the instant application, as it extends away from the far right wall of the body).
Regarding claim 18, modified Farooq teaches that the major fourth segment of the first single major hook and the minor third segment of the second single minor hook are terminal ends (after the modification above, the major fourth section extends to the terminal end).
Regarding claim 19, modified Farooq teaches that each one of the plurality of slats are joined together in a rectangular interlocking grip (after the modification above this is the case).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “The Office Action suggests modifying Farooq by replacing its rounded hooks with the rectangular hook design of Kroie. However, this combination would not arrive at the claimed invention. Kroie's hook-and-body structure (Fig. 1) is fundamentally different and cannot be substituted into Farooq as suggested in the rejection. As shown in the Office Action's "Modified Fig. 1," the hook of Kroie is itself a complex structure with its own body and interlocking features for use as a static building panel, such as a panel used in the ceiling of a room. A person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to replace Farooq's simple, rounded hook for hinged movement with the entirety of Kroie's panel structure that is intended for static use and not movement. Even if one were to attempt such a modification, it would not result in the claimed perpendicular relationship between the terminal segments. Kroie's hooks are designed to interconnect in a specific parallel manner to form a static wall panel.
Further, modifying Farooq's slat with Kroie's hook would not teach or suggest nesting a single
minor hook within a single major hook to form a bead where the terminal major fourth segment
and minor third segment are perpendicular to each other. This specific perpendicular arrangement, which creates a strong, interlocking connection that resists disengagement and provides structural integrity, is a key feature of the Applicant's invention and is absent from the prior art.”
The examiner notes that the combination above reads on the claims as written. The main structure of panels interconnected in a hinged manner is taught by Farooq. Kroie is simply used to modify the existing hooks of Farooq, so that they have the structure as required by the claim, while maintaining the hinged connection. The examiner directs attention to the annotated figure above where it is shown that the major fourth segment and minor third segment are perpendicular to each other. Column 6 lines 44-55 of Kroie clearly teaches that multiple panels can be interconnected forming the beads, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination taking teachings of interconnect panels of Kroie and applying them to the interconnected panels of Farooq.
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
