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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s arguments dated 12/4/2025 are persuasive and the requirement for restriction has been withdrawn. All claims 1-20 will be examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: several instances in the specification, including at least [0048], [0052], [0056], and [0065], refer to element 180 as the internal cavity, when the figures instead show element 180 as a seal and the internal cavity as element 181.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 7 recites the limitation "wherein first module connector is configured...". This appears to be a typographical error and should instead be "wherein the first module connector is configured...". The examiner is interpreting the first module of claim 7 to be the same first module as claim 1 from which claim 7 depends upon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first module" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the first module” will be interpreted as “the first internal module”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first module" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the first module” will be interpreted as “the first internal module”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a first stile and a second stile”. Is this referring to the same “at least one stile” from independent claim 8 from which claim 17 depends upon, or is it a separate stile? It is not clear. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting “a first stile” of claim 17 to be the same “at least one stile” from claim 8, however clarification is required.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lafleur (U.S. 5,168,915).
Regarding claim 1, Lafleur teaches a frame rail for a movable barrier, comprising: an outer surface portion (30) and an inner surface portion (32), the outer and the inner surface portions (30 and 32 respectively) extending from an end of the frame rail (28) across the movable barrier (10, see fig 4), the inner surface portion (32) forming an internal cavity (between web 40 and flanges 42); and a first module connector (44) formed in the internal cavity (see fig 4), the first module connector (44) extending along a length of the frame rail (28) and configured to slidably receive a corresponding second module connector (38) of an internal module (36).
Regarding claim 2, Lafleur teaches the frame rail of claim 1. Lafleur further teaches comprising a third module connector (a second instance of element 44, as seen in fig 4) formed in the internal cavity (between web 40 and flanges 42), the third module connector (44) extending along the length of the frame rail parallel to the first module connector (as noted, a pair of module connectors are defined as 44 in fig 4) and configured to slidably receive a corresponding fourth module connector (a second instance of element 38, as seen in fig 4) of the internal module (36).
Regarding claim 3, Lafleur teaches the frame rail of claim 1. Lafleur further teaches wherein the frame rail (28) has a continuous cross- section (see fig 4) with the first module connector (44) integrally formed with inner surface portion (32).
Regarding claim 4, Lafleur teaches the frame rail of claim 3. Lafleur further teaches wherein the frame rail is an extruded rail (column 3, lines 58-64).
Regarding claim 5, Lafleur teaches the frame rail of claim 1. Lafleur further teaches wherein one of the first or second module connectors (38) comprises a groove and the other of the first (44) or second module connectors comprises a tongue configured for receipt within the groove (see fig 5).
Regarding claim 6, Lafleur teaches the frame rail of claim 5. Lafleur further teaches wherein the groove and the tongue are shaped as a dovetail in cross-section (as seen in fig 5).
Regarding claim 7, Lafleur teaches the frame rail of claim 1. Lafleur further teaches wherein first module connector (44) is configured to slidably receive the second module connector (38) from a longitudinal end surface of the frame rail (as seen in fig 5, 44 and 38 could be slid into place from a longitudinal end surface of the frame rail).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafleur (U.S. 5,168,915) in view of Earnest (U.S. 11,649,665).
Regarding claim 8, Lafleur teaches a movable barrier, comprising: a plurality of interconnected panels (each 12, see fig 1), a first panel (12) of the plurality of interconnected panels (each 12, see fig 1) comprising: a first frame rail (28) comprising: an outer surface portion (30) and an inner surface portion (32), the inner surface portion (32) forming an internal cavity (between web 40 and flanges 42); and a first module connector (44) formed in the internal cavity (as defined above), the first module connector (44) extending along a length of the first frame rail (see fig 4); a second frame rail (another instance of frame rail 28, column 4 lines 49-51 explains 28 extends along the tops and bottoms of the panels 12); and a first internal module (36) located in the internal cavity (between web 40 and flanges 42) and comprising a second module connector (38) configured to slidably engage the first module connector (44) to secure the first internal module (36) to the first panel (12).
Lafleur is silent as to a stile connecting the first and second frame rails (28).
Earnest teaches a similar movable barrier, where stiles are utilized (30’, see fig 5) to connect frame rails to create a larger movable barrier.
Lafleur and Earnest are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of movable barriers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lafleur to incorporate the teachings of Earnest and provide at least one stile to connect the first and second frame rails. Doing so would allow one to create a larger movable barrier.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lafleur and Earnest teaches the movable barrier of claim 8. As best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, Lafleur further teaches wherein the first module (36) comprises an internal reinforcing fin (see fig 4) configured to resist flexing of the first panel (12).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lafleur and Earnest teaches the movable barrier of claim 9. Lafleur further teaches wherein the internal reinforcing fin (in 36) comprises an attachment wall (35) configured to be fastened to the frame rail (28 via attachment to 30), a central wall (37a) extending across the internal cavity (see fig 5), and a reinforcement wall (37) extending from the central wall (37a).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lafleur and Earnest teaches the movable barrier of claim 9. Lafleur further teaches , wherein one of the first or second module connectors (38) comprises a groove and the other of the first (44) or second module connectors comprises a tongue configured for receipt within the groove (see fig 5).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lafleur and Earnest teaches the movable barrier of claim 8. As best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, Lafleur further teaches wherein the first frame rail further comprises a third module connector (a second instance of element 44, as seen in fig 4) formed in the internal cavity (between web 40 and flanges 42), the third module connector (44) extending along the length of the first frame rail parallel to the first module connector (as noted, a pair of module connectors are defined as 44 in fig 4), and the first module (36) further comprises a corresponding fourth module connector (a second instance of element 38, as seen in fig 4) configured to slidably engage the third module connector (44) to secure the first internal module (36) to the first panel (12).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lafleur and Earnest teaches the movable barrier of claim 12. Lafleur further teaches wherein: the first module connector and the third module connector each comprise a groove and the second module connector and the fourth module connector each comprise a corresponding tongue; or the first module connector and the third module connector (both labeled 44, two instances) each comprise a tongue and the second module connector and the fourth module connector (both labeled 38, two instances) each comprise a corresponding groove (see fig 5).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lafleur and Earnest teaches the movable barrier of claim 12. Lafleur further teaches wherein the first internal module (36) comprises an internal reinforcing strut (37a) configured to resist bending of the first panel (12).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lafleur and Earnest teaches the movable barrier of claim 14. Lafleur further teaches wherein the internal reinforcing strut (37a) comprises a chamber (39) enclosed in cross-section extending along a length of the strut (see fig 4).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lafleur and Earnest teaches the movable barrier of claim 8. Lafleur and Earnest further teach the second frame rail (another instance of frame rail 28, column 4 lines 49-51 explains 28 extends along the tops and bottoms of the panels 12 Lafleur) comprises: an outer surface portion (30 Lafleur) and an inner surface portion (32 Lafleur), the inner surface portion (32 Lafleur) forming a second internal cavity (between web 40 and flanges 42 Lafleur); and a third module connector (another instance of 44, as seen in fig 4 Lafleur) formed in the second internal cavity (as defined above), the third module connector (44 Lafleur) extending along a length of the second frame rail (see fig 4 Lafleur); and the movable barrier (10 Lafleur) further comprises: a second internal module (another instance of 36, as seen in fig 4 Lafleur) comprising a fourth module connector (another instance of 38, as seen in fig 4 Lafleur) configured to slidably engage the third module connector (44 Lafleur) to secure the second internal module (36 Lafleur) to the first panel (12 Lafleur); and a glazing member (60 Earnest, column 11 lines 49-51 describes 60 as a window with glass)positioned within an opening formed by the first frame rail, the second frame rail, a first stile (30’ Earnest), and a second stile (also labeled 30’ in another instance, see fig 5 Earnest). It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the glazing member of Earnest into the combination of Lafleur and Earnest, as a glazing member would improve the aesthetic look of the movable barrier while also granting allowing one to see into the area the movable barrier isolates.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafleur (U.S. 5,168,915) in view of Earnest (U.S. 11,649,665) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Lee (U.S. 2024/0060356).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lafleur and Earnest teaches the movable barrier of claim 15. However, Lafleur and Earnest are silent as to an internal support member slidably received within the chamber.
Lee teaches a similar movable barrier where a reinforcing strut comprises an internal support member (175) slidably received within the chamber (as described in [0013] and seen in fig 11).
Lafleur, Earnest, and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of movable barriers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Lafleur and Earnest to incorporate the teachings of Lee and provide an internal support to a reinforcing strut. Doing so would further reinforce the strut in the case of impact to the movable barrier.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Earnest (U.S. 11,649,665) in view of Lafleur (U.S. 5,168,915).
Regarding claim 18, Earnest teaches a method of assembling a movable barrier, comprising: forming a plurality of panels (S1-S4, see fig 5), each panel (S1, S2, S2, or S4) of the plurality of panels (S1-S4) comprising an opening defined between a first frame rail (40’), a second frame rail (also labeled 40’ in another instance, see fig 5), a first stile (30’) connecting the first and second frame rails (both 40’, see fig 5), and a second stile (also labeled 30’ in another instance, see fig 5) connecting the first and second frame rails (both 40’ see fig 5); positioning a glazing member (60, column 11 lines 49-51 describes 60 as a window with glass) in the opening of each panel (S1-S4); connecting each panel to one or more adjacent panels of the plurality of panels (S1-S4, see fig 5).
Earnest does not teach specific details of the frame rails (40’).
Lafleur teaches a similar movable barrier where the frame rails comprise an outer surface portion (30) and an inner surface portion (32), the inner surface portion (32) forming an internal cavity (between web 40 and flanges 42); and a module connector (44) formed in the internal cavity (as defined above), the module connector (44) extending along a length of the first frame rail (see fig 4).
The combination of Earnest and Lafleur would then teach coupling a first internal module (36 Lafleur) to a first panel (S1, S2, S3, or S4 Earnest) of the plurality of panels (S1-S4 Earnest) by slidably engaging a module connector (38 Lafleur) of the first internal module (36 Lafleur) with the module connector (44 Lafleur) of the first frame rail (28 Lafleur) of the first panel (S1-S4, see fig 5 Earnest); and coupling a second internal module (another instance of 36, located on an adjacent panel, as seen in figs 4 and 7 Lafleur) to a second panel (S1-S4, see fig 5 Earnest) of the plurality of panels by slidably engaging a module connector of the second internal module (36 Lafleur) with the module connector of the first frame rail (44 Lafleur) of the second panel (S1-S4, see fig 5 Earnest).
Earnest and Lafleur are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of movable barriers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Earnest to incorporate the teachings of Lafleur and provide frame rails with the details as defined above. Doing so would provide a strong and robust frame rail with internal support which to form the movable barrier.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Earnest and Lafleur teaches the method of claim 18. Lafleur further teaches wherein the first internal module (36) has a different cross-sectional profile than the second internal module (second instance of 36- as seen in fig 4, the cross sections are mirror images of one another).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Earnest and Lafleur teaches the method of claim 18. Earnest and Lafleur further teach wherein coupling the first internal module (36 Lafleur) to the first panel (S1-S4, see fig 5 Earnest) of the plurality of panels includes slidably engaging a second module connector (also 38 Lafleur) of the first internal module (36 Lafleur) with a second module connector (44 Lafleur) of the first frame rail (28 Lafleur) of the first panel (S1-S4, see fig 5 Earnest).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11,927,051 (teaches impact support for a movable barrier), US 11,788,344 (teaches internal support for a movable barrier), US 11,286,708 (teaches a movable barrier with rails, stiles, and glazing members), US 2019/0003242 (teaches an internal support for a movable barrier).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Susan M Heschel whose telephone number is (571)272-6621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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 Troy can be reached at (571)270-3742. 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.
/SUSAN M. HESCHEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3637
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631