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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/20/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 line 7 recites “silicon rubber” instead of “silicone rubber”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 13-15 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent 5435104 to Dietrich (hereinafter Dietrich) in view of US PG Pub 2019/0316410 to Von Ryberg (hereinafter Von), US patent 11261653 to Skold (hereinafter Skold), and US patent 2560308 to Spraragen (hereinafter Spraragen).
Regarding claim 1, the garage door (intended use) perimeter sealing device is shown in Dietrich in figures 1-6 with
a retainer plate (36) comprised of a first opening (72);
a second member (38) comprised of a second opening (70);
a seal (22).
However, Dietrich is silent as to the material of the second member and the seal and does not teach countersunk openings.
A steel member is shown in Von in the embodiment of figure 6 where member (506) of seal device (500) is steel (further taught in paragraph [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the seal device of Dietrich with the steel member of Von because Dietrich (examiner apologizes for previous typo stating Von) already seems to have contemplated a metal second member based on the cross-hatchings in figure 4 and because steel plates attaching seals as in Von provided the known benefit of a strong and durable attachment member (see also MPEP 2144.07 selection of known material based on suitability for intended use obvious).
An EPDM rubber seal is shown in Skold in figures 1A-7C where seal (104) is made of rubber (further taught column 6 lines 33-35,51-56 where seal can be EPDM as in claim 1, silicone as in claim 9, or neoprene as in claim 17 in addition to a variety of other rubbers and materials).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the seal device of Dietrich with the EPDM rubber seal of Skold because Dietrich already seems to have contemplated a rubber seal based on the cross-hatchings in figure 4 and because rubber seals provided the known benefit of a durable flexible sealing member (see also MPEP 2144.07 selection of known material based on suitability for intended use obvious).
Countersunk openings are shown in Spraragen in figures 1 and 8 where a sealing device has seal (45) and a steel plate (49) with a countersunk opening (further taught column 5 lines 67-72) for a fastener (50). When provided to Dietrich having openings in both retaining plate and steel plate both openings would be countersunk.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the seal device of Dietrich with the countersunk openings of Spraragen because countersunk openings provided the known benefit of allowing the fastener such as a screw to lie flat with the plate into which the fastener is placed.
Regarding claim 4, Dietrich is silent as to the material of the retainer plate.
An aluminum plate is shown in Von in the embodiment of figure 6 where plate (506) of seal device (500) is aluminum (further taught in paragraph [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the seal device of Dietrich, having the steel member of Von, the EPDM rubber of Skold, and the countersunk openings of Spraragen, with the aluminum plate of Von because Dietrich (examiner apologizes for previous typo stating Von) already seems to have contemplated a metal retaining plate based on the cross-hatchings in figure 4 and because aluminum plates provided the known benefit of a lightweight and durable plates (see also MPEP 2144.07 selection of known material based on suitability for intended use obvious).
Regarding claim 6, the seal (22) is positioned between the retaining plate (36) and the steel (when provided with the steel plate of Von) member (38) in Dietrich.
Regarding claim 7, while Dietrich appears to show the seal (22) extending at a 45-degree angle relative to the horizontal axis of the second member (38) Dietrich is silent as to the specific angle.
Although Dietrich does not disclose the specific angle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to angle the seal to be useful- i.e. too small an angle would cause excess bending of the seal when engaged with the door and too large an angle would make it difficult or impossible for the seal to engage the door (e.g. a 90-degree angle in the configuration shown in figure 6 would not engage the door at all). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select or at least try the angle claimed as there are a finite number of angles such a seal can usefully be made in.
Regarding claim 9, the garage door (intended use) perimeter sealing device is shown in Dietrich in figures 1-6 with
a retainer plate (36) comprised of a first opening (72);
a second member (38) comprised of a second opening (70);
a seal (22).
However, Dietrich is silent as to the material of the second member and the seal and does not teach countersunk openings or double sided tape.
A steel member is shown in Von in the embodiment of figure 6 where seal device (500) has plate member (506) that is steel (further taught in paragraph [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the seal device of Dietrich with the steel member of Von because Dietrich (examiner apologizes for previous typo stating Von) already seems to have contemplated a metal second member based on the cross-hatchings in figure 4 and because steel plates attaching seals as in Von provided the known benefit of a strong and durable attachment member (see also MPEP 2144.07 selection of known material based on suitability for intended use obvious).
Double sided tape is shown in Von in the embodiment of figures 1-2 where seal device (101,201) has a fastener that is double sided tape (further taught paragraph [0093]). Examiner notes double sided tape is used to attach the seal to the surface below it on the door side, which would be the retaining plate when provided to Dietrich.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the seal device of Dietrich with the double sided tape of Von because double sided tape provided the known benefit of holding the seal in place and allowing user to use both hands for any tools needed for further attaching as taught in Von in paragraph [0093].
A silicone rubber seal is shown in Skold in figures 1A-7C where seal (104) is made of rubber (further taught column 6 lines 33-35,51-56 where seal can be EPDM as in claim 1, silicone as in claim 9, or neoprene as in claim 17 in addition to a variety of other rubbers and materials).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the seal device of Dietrich with the silicone rubber seal of Skold because Dietrich already seems to have contemplated a rubber seal based on the cross-hatchings in figure 4 and because rubber seals provided the known benefit of a durable flexible sealing member (see also MPEP 2144.07 selection of known material based on suitability for intended use obvious).
Countersunk openings are shown in Spraragen in figures 1 and 8 where a sealing device has seal (45) and a steel plate (49) with a countersunk opening (further taught column 5 lines 67-72) for a fastener (50). When provided to Dietrich having openings in both retaining plate and steel plate both openings would be countersunk.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the seal device of Dietrich with the countersunk openings of Spraragen because countersunk openings provided the known benefit of allowing the fastener such as a screw to lie flat with the plate into which the fastener is placed.
Regarding claim 11, Dietrich is silent as to the material of the retainer plate.
An aluminum plate is shown in Von in the embodiment of figure 6 where plate (506) of seal device (500) is aluminum (further taught in paragraph [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the seal device of Dietrich, having the steel member of Von, the double sided tape of Von, the EPDM rubber of Skold, and the countersunk openings of Spraragen, with the aluminum plate of Von because Dietrich (examiner apologizes for previous typo stating Von) already seems to have contemplated a metal retaining plate based on the cross-hatchings in figure 4 and because aluminum plates provided the known benefit of a lightweight and durable plates (see also MPEP 2144.07 selection of known material based on suitability for intended use obvious).
Regarding claim 13, the seal (22) is positioned between the retaining plate (36) and the steel (when provided with the steel plate of Von) member (38) in Dietrich.
Regarding claim 14, while Dietrich appears to show the seal (22) extending at a 45-degree angle relative to the horizontal axis of the second member (38) Dietrich is silent as to the specific angle.
Although Dietrich does not disclose the specific angle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to angle the seal to be useful- i.e. too small an angle would cause excess bending of the seal when engaged with the door and too large an angle would make it difficult or impossible for the seal to engage the door (e.g. a 90-degree angle in the configuration shown in figure 6 would not engage the door at all). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select or at least try the angle claimed as there are a finite number of angles such a seal can usefully be made in.
Regarding claim 15, the retainer plate (36) is comprised of a receiving area (40) the receives the steel (when provided with the steel member of Von) member (38) in Von.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietrich, Von, Skold, and Spraragen as applied to claims 1 and 9 (as well as claims 4, 6, 7, 11, and 13-15) above, and further in view of Admitted Prior art (hereinafter APA).
Regarding claim 8, Dietrich is silent as to a simulated finish.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s acceptance of examiner’s Official Notice that simulated finishes were old and well known in the seal art. As no arguments rebutted this fact it is now considered admitted prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the seal device of Dietrich, having the steel member of Von, the EPDM rubber of Skold, and the countersunk openings of Spraragen, with the simulated finish of APA because simulated surfaces provided improved aesthetics for the exterior surface and thereby could expand the market for the seal device of Von (i.e. to areas where the appearance of the seal is more important such as homes).
Regarding claim 16, Dietrich is silent as to a simulated finish.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s acceptance of examiner’s Official Notice that simulated finishes were old and well known in the seal art. As no arguments rebutted this fact it is now considered admitted prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the seal device of Dietrich, having the steel member of Von, the double sided tape of Von, the EPDM rubber of Skold, and the countersunk openings of Spraragen, with the simulated finish of APA because simulated surfaces provided improved aesthetics for the exterior surface and thereby could expand the market for the seal device of Von (i.e. to areas where the appearance of the seal is more important such as homes).
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietrich in view of Von, Skold, Spraragen, and US PG Pub 2021/0222484 to Sirois (hereinafter Sirois).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, the method is shown in Dietrich in figures 1-6 with
providing a garage door perimeter sealing device (10) comprised of a retainer plate (36) comprised of a first opening (72), a second member (38) comprised of a second opening (70), a fastener (68), and a seal (22);
placing a portion of the seal (22) between the retainer plate (36) and the second member (38);
placing the retainer plate (36), the second member (38), and the seal (22) in front of a door (24) and securing the retainer plate (36) and the second member (38) into a door jamb (12), via driving the fastener (68) through the first opening (72) and the second opening (70) and into the door jamb (12), such that the seal covers a perimeter edge of the door (24).
However, Dietrich is silent as to the material of the second member and the seal, does not teach countersunk openings, and the door is not a garage door, although it is an up and over door similar to those used in garages.
A steel member is shown in Von in the embodiment of figure 6 where member (506) of seal device (500) is steel (further taught in paragraph [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the seal device of Dietrich with the steel member of Von because Dietrich (examiner apologizes for previous typo stating Von) already seems to have contemplated a metal second member based on the cross-hatchings in figure 4 and because steel plates attaching seals as in Von provided the known benefit of a strong and durable attachment member (see also MPEP 2144.07 selection of known material based on suitability for intended use obvious).
A neoprene rubber seal is shown in Skold in figures 1A-7C where seal (104) is made of rubber (further taught column 6 lines 33-35,51-56 where seal can be EPDM as in claim 1, silicone as in claim 9, or neoprene as in claim 17 in addition to a variety of other rubbers and materials).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the seal device of Dietrich with the neoprene rubber seal of Skold because Dietrich already seems to have contemplated a rubber seal based on the cross-hatchings in figure 4 and because rubber seals provided the known benefit of a durable flexible sealing member (see also MPEP 2144.07 selection of known material based on suitability for intended use obvious).
Countersunk openings are shown in Spraragen in figures 1 and 8 where a sealing device has seal (45) and a steel plate (49) with a countersunk opening (further taught column 5 lines 67-72) for a fastener (50). When provided to Dietrich having openings in both retaining plate and steel plate both openings would be countersunk.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the seal device of Dietrich with the countersunk openings of Spraragen because countersunk openings provided the known benefit of allowing the fastener such as a screw to lie flat with the plate into which the fastener is placed.
A garage door is shown in Sirois in figure 3 where door (200) is for a garage (300).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the seal device of Dietrich with the garage door of Sirois because the garage door would provide an additional market for the seal device of Dietrich and the seal device would work with an up and over garage door such as that shown in Sirois because the seal device of Dietrich is for an up and over door.
Regarding claim 19, Dietrich is silent as to the material of the retainer plate.
An aluminum plate is shown in Von in the embodiment of figure 6 where plate (506) of seal device (500) is aluminum (further taught in paragraph [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the seal device of Dietrich, having the steel member of Von, the EPDM rubber of Skold, the countersunk openings of Spraragen, and the garage door of Sirois, with the aluminum plate of Von because Dietrich (examiner apologizes for previous typo stating Von) already seems to have contemplated a metal retaining plate based on the cross-hatchings in figure 4 and because aluminum plates provided the known benefit of a lightweight and durable plates (see also MPEP 2144.07 selection of known material based on suitability for intended use obvious).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the drawing and specification objections, examiner note the issues have been resolved by amendment and as such the objections are withdrawn.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the claim objections, examiner notes the previous issue has been resolved, however, a new issue has arisen with amendment as detailed above.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the 112(d) rejections, examiner note the claims at issue have been cancelled and thus the issue has been resolved.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the 103 rejection of Dietrich in view of Von, examiner notes the arguments are directed only to the newly added subject matter (EPDM rubber, silicone rubber, double sided tape, and countersunk openings) of independent claims 1 and 9. Examiner maintains the newly added subject matter of the rubber types is read on by Skold, the countersunk openings by Spraragen, the double sided tape by Von (applicant only argues fastener of Dietrich) and when combined with Dietrich and Von the claims are read over.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the 103 rejection of Dietrich in view of Von and Siros, examiner notes the arguments are directed only to the newly added subject matter (neoprene rubber and countersunk openings) of independent claim 17. Examiner maintains the newly added subject matter of the rubber types is read on by Skold and the countersunk openings by Spraragen) and when combined with Dietrich, Von, and Siros the claim is read over.
Applicant’s only arguments directed to the dependent claims are that as the independent claims are allowable so too are the dependents.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CATHERINE A KELLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/CATHERINE A KELLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619