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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5) because Figures 2 9a, and 9b show(s) modified forms of construction in the same view.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the lower face with the lower base seal of claim 1 and the seal on the vertical edge of the main panel engaging a vertical edge of the extension panel of claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Only the upper face (unnumbered) with upper base seal 22a engaging the header is shown (see also objection to claim 13). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 2, 21 (only 21a and 21b), 30 (examiner notes figures 6 and 7 indicate seemingly different structures with reference numeral 30), 31.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 18, 35, 39, 42.
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 1 shows jack 23 as what appears to be a lever sticking out of extendable anchor 20. While the disclosure indicates the jack can be a lever jack, the preferred embodiment is a lead screw and even a lever jack would be mostly internal to the extendable anchor so just pointing to the lever doesn’t indicate the jack. The screw 23a and activator 23b are clearly shown in figure 2.
A similar issue occurs in figure 8a where jack 23 points to what looks like a screw on the exterior of the anchor.
Figure 2 is indicated with reference arrow as showing flood gate 10. There does not appear to be a flood gate in either part of figure 2, perhaps anchor 20 was meant?
Figure 2 includes unlabeled parts to the side of the presumed anchor that do not have a relationship with the disclosed structures, appear to be a pin and clip. If a pin and clip are used they do not need a reference numeral but should be shown in their engaged position with the labelled structures.
Figure 3 includes reference numerals 13a and 13b. The disclosure indicates extension panels 13a and 13b are only in the fifth example (paragraphs [0062]-[0066]), not the first example (figures 1-4). The structures indicated with reference numerals 13a and 13b appear to be the interior panel 11a and the exterior panel 11b.
Figure 7 is described as showing “a third embodiment of the invention implemented on a garage opening”. The only garage openings are shown in figures 1 and 6. Figure 7 shows what appears to be a plate with four oblong apertures and seems to have no relation to any of the disclosed embodiments nor does it appear possible for a plate to be a third embodiment.
Figures 8a-8b show a door embodiment with the anchor 20 engaging the top of the flood gate 10, as opposed to the garage with the anchor 20 engaging the side of the flood gate 10 in figures 1-6. Different embodiments should have different reference numerals.
Figure 8a indicates only fixing aperture 28 on lower anchor member 21b, contrary to paragraph [0056] indicating upper ancho member 21a also has a fixing aperture.
Figure 9a includes no relationship between anchor exterior member 55 and the anchor 20/21a and 21b and figure 9b include no indication of the anchor at all so it is difficult to determine the structural relationship between the parts.
Reference numeral 62 is described as a base flare, however, figure 9b shows an aperture with no flare.
Figure 10 does not include reference numerals 13a and 13b as indicated in paragraph [0063]
Given the large number of issues in the figures the above is a non-comprehensive list and applicant is advised to look for and correct other similar issues.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0038] describes the upper and lower anchor members having corresponding, i.e. aligned, fixation apertures with a pin inserted into the fixation aperture (unclear whether upper aperture, lower aperture, or both) to lock the upper anchor to the lower. As the anchor includes a jack for moving the lower member relative to the upper it is unclear how the upper and lower anchors can also be locked together. It would appear that the apertures may somehow (not shown or described) connect the upper and lower anchors to the jack to allow for the movement.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
All claims are indicated with [#] instead of #.
Claim 1 line 5 recites “a jack integrated into the at least one anchor”. As there are both at least one extensible anchor and at least one anchor member the proper modifying terms should be used in each recitation, in this case presumably “the at least one anchor member”.
Claim 1 line 6 recites “a gate interface disposed on the at least one anchor member”. The disclosure includes two different gate interfaces, vertical interface 26 in figure 3 and horizontal interface 26 in figure 8a (see above drawing objection different embodiment should have different reference numerals). As claim 1 is generic the claimed interface could be either, however, claim 1 previously recites the anchor having a lower face with a base seal. It would appear that in the horizontal gate interface embodiment the base seal is part of the gate interface as there is no seal shown between lower anchor member and gate interface (see above drawing objection, lower base surface and seal not show). For purposes of examination claim 1 will still be interpreted as generic but in the horizontal embodiment the gate interface will include the base seal in keeping with the disclosure.
Claim 1 line 7 recites “a flood gate” and line 8 recites “at least one flood gate”. It appears that the “at least one flood gate” should be “the flood gate”. Examiner notes that a flood gate can later be redefined as “the flood gate comprises a first flood gate and a second flood gate” so the “at least one” is not necessary to give the option of more gate. Also applicant is not presently claiming any more than a flood gate.
Claim 1 lines 13-15 recite “a seal disposed on a first vertical edge of the at least one flood gate, wherein the seal is a second seal or the at least one silicone seal”. The at least one silicone seal is disposed on the bottom edge per line 12. As such it does not appear possible that the seal on the vertical edge can be the at least one seal.
A similar issue occurs in lines 16-18 with respect to the seal on the second vertical edge with the addition of antecedent issues as both the seal and the second seal are previously recited. It appears that applicant is trying to claim three seals, a bottom, a first vertical, and a second vertical. The claims should not use the same terms to refer to more than one of the seals, i.e. at present all three are referred to as “the at least one silicone seal”. Examiner also notes that as the three seals are separately and positively recited the use of the phrase “at least one” is unnecessary and adds confusion.
Claim 2 recites “the at least one extendable anchor further comprises: an upper anchor member having an upper face and a lower face; a lower anchor member disposed on the lower face of the upper anchor member, and having a lower face”. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends already recites the at least one extendable anchor comprising at least one anchor member with an upper face and a lower face. It appears that applicant is trying to redefine the at least one anchor member (not the at least one extensible anchor) as being an upper member and a lower member. Examiner notes claim 2 also raises issues with the faces as the base seal is previously defined as on the lower face of the at least one anchor and is now on the lower face of the lower anchor member.
Claim 3 lines 1-2 recites “a jack integrated at the at least one anchor”. Claim 1 already includes an identical recitation and as such the recitation in claim 3 has both improper antecedent for the jack and is redundant.
Claim 4 line 2 recites “upper base seal” instead of “an upper base seal”.
Claim 4 line 6 recites “upper anchor member” instead of “the upper anchor member”.
Claim 6 line 2 recites “upper anchor member” instead of “the upper anchor member”.
Claim 6 line 3 recites “lower anchor member” instead of “the lower anchor member”.
Claim 6 lines 7-8 recite “the second anchor member fixation” instead of “the second anchor member fixation aperture”.
Claim 8 line 2 recites “interface mount” instead of “an interface mount”.
Claim 10 line 3 recites “a gate main panel”. The gate main panel is already recited in claim 1, from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 13 includes similar issues to those found in claims 1 and 10.
Claim 13 lines 14-16 recite “a gate seal disposed on a first vertical edge of the gate main panel, wherein the gate seal is disposed to sealingly engage a second vertical edge of an at least one extendable gate panel”. The extension seal (16) between main panel (11) and extendable panel (13) appears to between surfaces of the panels and not between the edge, i.e. the seal is on the exterior faces of 11 and engages the interior faces of 13. For purposes of examination edge will be read broadly to include adjacent surfaces.
Claim 14 line 2 recites “the second vertical edge of the gate main panel” while line 3 recites “a second vertical edge of the gate main panel”. The antecedents are in the reverse order.
Claim 14 lines 8-12 includes similar issues with respect to the seals as claim 1.
Claim 16 includes similar issues to those in claim 2.
Claim 17 includes similar issues to those in claim 3.
Claim 18 includes similar issues to those in claim 4.
Claim 20 includes similar issues to those in claim 8.
Given the large number of issues the above is a non-comprehensive list and applicant is advised to look for and correct other similar issues.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 line 4-6 recite “the first anchor member fixation aperture corresponds to the second anchor member fixation aperture when upper anchor member is connected to lower anchor member”. As noted with the above specification objection, it is unclear how the upper and lower anchor members are connected together. The disclosure describes them as somehow being locked together by a pin, however, that makes movement of the lower member using the jack as recited in claim 3 not possible. Claim will be interpreted broadly as the upper and lower members are connected in some manner, movable or indirectly.
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, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10244835 to Lahne (hereinafter Lahne) in view of EP 3173570 to Collados (hereinafter Collados).
Regarding claim 1, the watertight barrier is shown in Lahne in figures 1-4 with
at least one extendable anchor (12), further comprising:
at least one anchor member having an upper face (engaging upper plate, plate shown annotated figure 1 below) and a lower face (engaging lower plate, annotated figure 1);
a base seal (rubber profile taught in page 2 of translated spec, 10th full paragraph) disposed on the lower face of the at least one anchor member;
a jack (anchor 12 is jack, i.e. gas strut) integrated in the at least one anchor;
a gate interface (horizontal interface embodiment, interface lower plate figure 1) disposed on the at least one anchor member and dimensioned to accept a flood gate;
at least one flood gate, further comprising:
a gate main panel (8,9,10,11), having a face formed of a water impermeable material (gate is part of flood protection system and thus made of water impermeable material), an upper edge (upper edge figure 1), a first vertical edge (left vertical edge figure 1), a second vertical edge (right vertical edge figure 1), and a bottom edge (bottom edge figure 1);
at least one seal (7) disposed on the bottom edge of the gate main panel (8,9,10,11).
While Lahne appears to show a seal on both vertical edges in figure 2, if applicant disagrees an edge seal is shown in Collados in figures 1-3 where gate (1) has seals (10) on both vertical edges (both edge panels 16 have seal 10 shown in figures 2 and 3).
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 watertight barrier of Lahne with the vertical edge seals of Collados because vertical edge seals provided the known benefit of increased sealing in flood or water barriers and thus improved performance of the flood barrier.
However, the at least one seal (7) is not silicone in Lahne.
A silicone seal is shown in Lahne in figure 2 where seals (13) are silicone (taught in page 2 of translated spec, 9th full paragraph).
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 watertight barrier of Lahne with the silicone seal of Lahne because silicone provided the known benefit of being a durable elastic material good for moisture and variable temperature situations such as flood barriers (see also MPEP 2144.07 selection of known material based on its suitability for its intended use obvious).
PNG
media_image1.png
700
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the base seal is rubber in Lahne.
A silicone seal is shown in Lahne in figure 2 where seals (13) are silicone (taught in page 2 of translated spec, 9th full paragraph).
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 watertight barrier of Lahne, having the vertical seal of Collados and the silicone seal of Lahne, with the silicone seal of Lahne because both silicone provided the known benefit of being a durable elastic material good for moisture and variable temperature situations such as flood barriers (see also MPEP 2144.07 selection of known material based on its suitability for its intended use obvious).
Regarding claim 7, the gate interface (lower plate) has a U-shaped cross-section (figure 3) in Lahne. An H-shaped cross-section would be a design choice change in shape.
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 watertight barrier of Lahne, having the vertical seal of Collados and the silicone seal of Lahne, with an H-shaped cross-section gate interface because the H-shape would allow for more engagement between the interface and the anchor, i.e. the anchor would be held in a U-shape opposite the one holding the gate, and thereby improve connection between anchor and gate.
Regarding claim 10, Lahne does not teach an extendable gate.
An extendable gate is shown in Collados in figures 1-5 where flood gate (1) includes a gate main panel (24, 25) and at least one extendable gate panel (16) slidingly fixed to the main panel, wherein the at least one extendable gate panel (16) has a face formed of a water impermeable material (gate is part of flood protection system and thus made of water impermeable material), an upper edge (upper edge figure 4), a first vertical edge (exterior edge, away from 15 in figure 4), and a bottom edge (bottom edge in figure 4); wherein the seal (10) disposed on a first vertical edge of the at least one flood gate is disposed on the first vertical edge of the at least one extendable gate panel (16); and an extension mechanism (14) disposed in the gate main panel and adapted to extend the at least one extendable gate panel (16). When provided to Lahne having a bottom silicone seal as detailed above the bottom edge of the extendable panel would also have a silicone seal, i.e. the entire bottom of the gate in Lahne has the bottom seal.
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 watertight barrier of Lahne, having the vertical seal of Collados and the silicone seal of Lahne, with the extendable gate of Collados because extendable gates allowed for easy adjustment to openings of different widths.
Regarding claim 11, the extendable flood gate includes a silicone seal (26,27) between main panel (24,25) and extendable panel (16) in Collados.
Regarding claim 13, the watertight barrier is shown in Lahne in figures 1-4 with
at least one extendable anchor (12), further comprising:
at least one anchor member having an upper face (engaging upper plate, plate shown annotated figure 1 above) and a lower face (engaging lower plate, annotated figure 1);
a base seal (rubber profile taught in page 2 of translated spec, 10th full paragraph) disposed on the lower face of the at least one anchor member;
a jack (anchor 12 is jack, i.e. gas strut) integrated in the at least one anchor;
a gate interface (horizontal interface embodiment, interface lower plate figure 1) disposed on the at least one anchor member and dimensioned to accept a flood gate;
at least one flood gate, further comprising:
a gate main panel (8,9,10,11), having a face formed of a water impermeable material (gate is part of flood protection system and thus made of water impermeable material), an upper edge (upper edge figure 1), a first vertical edge (left vertical edge figure 1), a second vertical edge (right vertical edge figure 1), and a bottom edge (bottom edge figure 1);
at least one seal (7) disposed on the bottom edge of the gate main panel (8,9,10,11).
While Lahne appears to show a seal on both vertical edges in figure 2, if applicant disagrees an edge seal is shown in Collados in figures 1-3 where gate (1) has seals (10) on both vertical edges (both edge panels 16 have seal 10 shown in figures 2 and 3). The edge seal is the second panel seal in claim 13.
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 watertight barrier of Lahne with the vertical edge seals of Collados because vertical edge seals provided the known benefit of increased sealing in flood or water barriers and thus improved performance of the flood barrier.
However, the at least one seal (7) is not silicone in Lahne and Lahne does not teach and extendable gate.
A silicone seal is shown in Lahne in figure 2 where seals (13) are silicone (taught in page 2 of translated spec, 9th full paragraph).
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 watertight barrier of Lahne with the silicone seal of Lahne because silicone provided the known benefit of being a durable elastic material good for moisture and variable temperature situations such as flood barriers (see also MPEP 2144.07 selection of known material based on its suitability for its intended use obvious).
An extendable gate is shown in Collados in figures 1-5 where flood gate (1) includes a gate main panel (24, 25) and at least one extendable gate panel (16) slidingly fixed to the main panel, a seal (26,27) on main panel (24,25) engaging extendable panel (16) near a second vertical edge (interior vertical edge, towards 15 in figure 4), wherein the at least one extendable gate panel (16) has a face formed of a water impermeable material (gate is part of flood protection system and thus made of water impermeable material), an upper edge (upper edge figure 4), a first vertical edge (exterior edge, away from 15 in figure 4), and a bottom edge (bottom edge in figure 4); a first panel seal (10) disposed on the first of the at least one extendable gate panel (16) to engage a first structure aperture member (lateral upright 8 in figure 1); and an extension mechanism (14) disposed in the gate main panel and adapted to extend the at least one extendable gate panel (16). When provided to Lahne having a bottom silicone seal as detailed above the bottom edge of the extendable panel would also have a silicone seal, i.e. the entire bottom of the gate in Lahne has the bottom seal.
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 watertight barrier of Lahne with the extendable gate of Collados because extendable gates allowed for easy adjustment to openings of different widths.
Regarding claim 14, the at least one extendable gate panel (16) is two extendable gate panels (16), one on either edge of main gate panel (24,25) in Collados.
Regarding claim 19, the base seal is rubber in Lahne.
A silicone seal is shown in Lahne in figure 2 where seals (13) are silicone (taught in page 2 of translated spec, 9th full paragraph).
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 watertight barrier of Lahne, having the vertical seal and extendable panel of Collados and the silicone seal of Lahne, with the silicone seal of Lahne because both silicone provided the known benefit of being a durable elastic material good for moisture and variable temperature situations such as flood barriers (see also MPEP 2144.07 selection of known material based on its suitability for its intended use obvious).
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lahne and Collados as applied to claims 7 and 13 (as well as 1, 5, 10, 11, 14, and 19) above, and further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Lahne is silent as to the connection between the gate interface and the anchor, although the connection appears to be fixed.
Examiner takes Official Notice that fixed connection via welding was old and well known in the 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 watertight barrier of Lahne, having the vertical seal of Collados and the silicone seal of Lahne, with a fixed welded connection between gate interface and connector because welded connections provided the known benefit of a secure and durable connection between two pieces.
Regarding claim 20, Lahne is silent as to the connection between the gate interface and the anchor, although the connection appears to be fixed.
Examiner takes Official Notice that fixed connections including welding was old and well known in the 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 watertight barrier of Lahne, having the vertical seal and extendable gate of Collados and the silicone seal of Lahne, with a fixed welded connection between gate interface and connector because welded connections provided the known benefit of a secure and durable connection between two pieces.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 12, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lahne and Collados as applied to claims 1, 10, and 13 (as well as 5, 7, 11, 14, and 19) above, and further in view of GB 2468971 to Dunn (hereinafter Dunn).
Regarding claim 2, the anchor member does not have upper and lower anchor members in Lahne.
Upper and lower anchor members are shown in Dunn in figures 3-6 and 8, with an upper anchor member (upper tube, annotated figure 8 below) having an upper face (with upper interface, similar to Lahne) and lower face (facing lower anchor member) and a lower anchor member (lower tube, annotated figure 8) having upper face (facing upper anchor member). When provided to Lahn the lower anchor would have a lower face with base seal, similar to the lower face in Lahne engaging the flood gate.
PNG
media_image2.png
682
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 watertight barrier of Lahne, having the vertical seal of Collados and the silicone seal of Lahne, with the upper and lower anchor members of Dunn because the upper and lower anchor members allow for different jacks (not an integral gas strut) and thereby provide a strong connection without the potential issues of a gas strut (gas degradation over time, temperature issues, etc.).
Regarding claim 3, the upper and lower anchors include a jack (404, includes 801-804 shown in figure 8) and the jack (404) is integrated in the upper anchor in Dunn and when the upper and lower anchor members are provided to the barrier of Lahne the jack would be included (i.e. the jack is part of the extendable anchor in both Lahne and Dunn so when the two part anchor of Dunn is provide it includes the integral jack to replace the integral jack of Lahne as without the jack the anchor doesn’t extend).
Regarding claim 4, the anchor (12) includes an anchor interface plate (upper plate, figure 1) and an upper base seal (rubber profile taught in page 2 of translated spec, 10th full paragraph) and the anchor interface plate has a larger cross-section than the anchor in Lahne. When provided with the upper and lower anchors of Dunn the anchor interface plate would be on the upper face of the upper anchor, similar to the arrangement in Lahne, to engage an upper side of the opening.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the upper and lower anchor members (figure 8) are connected to each other via the jack (404) in Dunn.
Regarding claim 12, the extension mechanism (14) is a rack and pinion in Collados.
A screw mechanism is shown in Dunn in figures 3-7 where extension mechanism (404) for extending horizontal member (402) is a screw mechanism (figure 7).
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 watertight barrier of Lahne, having the vertical seal and extendable panel of Collados and the silicone seal of Lahne, with the screw extension mechanism of Dunn because both rack and pinions and screws were known mechanism for extending or telescoping as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected.
Regarding claim 15, the extension mechanism (14) is a rack and pinion in Collados.
A screw mechanism is shown in Dunn in figures 3-7 where extension mechanism (404) for extending horizontal member (402) is a screw mechanism (figure 7).
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 watertight barrier of Lahne, having the vertical seal and extendable panel of Collados and the silicone seal of Lahne, with the screw extension mechanism of Dunn because both rack and pinions and screws were known mechanism for extending or telescoping as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected.
Regarding claim 16, the anchor member does not have upper and lower anchor members in Lahne.
Upper and lower anchor members are shown in Dunn in figures 3-6 and 8, with an upper anchor member (upper tube, annotated figure 8 above) having an upper face (with upper interface, similar to Lahne) and lower face (facing lower anchor member) and a lower anchor member (lower tube, annotated figure 8) having upper face (facing upper anchor member). When provided to Lahn the lower anchor would have a lower face with base seal, similar to the lower face in Lahne engaging the flood gate.
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 watertight barrier of Lahne, having the vertical seal and extendable panel of Collados and the silicone seal of Lahne, with the upper and lower anchor members of Dunn because the upper and lower anchor members allow for different jacks (not an integral gas strut) and thereby provide a strong connection without the potential issues of a gas strut (gas degradation over time, temperature issues, etc.).
Regarding claim 17, the upper and lower anchors include a jack (404, includes 801-804 shown in figure 8) and the jack (404) is integrated in the upper anchor in Dunn and when the upper and lower anchor members are provided to the barrier of Lahne the jack would be included (i.e. the jack is part of the extendable anchor in both Lahne and Dunn so when the two part anchor of Dunn is provide it includes the integral jack to replace the integral jack of Lahne as without the jack the anchor doesn’t extend).
Regarding claim 18, the anchor (12) includes an anchor interface plate (upper plate, figure 1) and an upper base seal (rubber profile taught in page 2 of translated spec, 10th full paragraph) and the anchor interface plate has a larger cross-section than the anchor in Lahne. When provided with the upper and lower anchors of Dunn the anchor interface plate would be on the upper face of the upper anchor, similar to the arrangement in Lahne, to engage an upper side of the opening.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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