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 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “125” has been used to designate both V-shaped cut figure 3c and rectangular cut figure 4a. Examiner suggests 125 and 125’ to indicate the different shapes.
A similar issue occurs with first cut 130 and second cut 132 in figures 4c and 4d and the thinning portion 126 in figures 3c-4d.
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. 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.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent 3583465 to Youngs (hereinafter Youngs) in view of GB 1298704 to Swiss Aluminum (hereinafter Swiss) as motivated by US patent 4241540 to Depperman (hereinafter Depperman).
Regarding claim 1 the rollable curtain is shown in Youngs in figures 1-3 with
a rollable curtain member (46) having a first joint (68);
wherein the first joint (68) divides the rollable curtain member (46) into a first segment (C) and a second segment (D); and
wherein the rollable curtain member (46) extends in a longitudinal direction (vertical direction figure 1) between two opposite transversal edges (upper and lower edges figure 1) and wherein the first joint (68) spans between the transversal edges, the rollable curtain member (46) being arranged to be rolled up or unrolled along the longitudinal direction.
However, the joints are not fold lines in Youngs.
Fold line joints are shown in Swiss in the embodiment of figure 2 (with generic details from figures 3, 4, 8 and 9) with joint (2) formed between two segments (6) where the joint (2) is a fold line (4) forming an indentation (figure 2). When provided to Youngs the fold line would allow the curtain segments to fold on top of each other. Although bodily incorporation of references is not required, for clarity examiner notes the allow for folding the reinforcement € of Youngs would necessarily be split, similar to the reinforcement (7) in Swiss.
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 curtain of Youngs with the fold line joint of Swiss because fold line joints were known in the curtain art as shown in Swiss figures 8 and 9 and foldable joints provided the benefit of decreasing the size of large door assembly parts for easier transport as taught in Depperman in column 1 lines 11-50.
Regarding claim 2, when provided with the fold line joint of Swiss, the joint (68) would divide the curtain (46) such that the first (C) and second (D) segments extend between opposite parallel edges (vertical edges of C and D in figure 1) such that the curtain is foldable between lateral edges (64 and 66 in figure 3) in Youngs.
Regarding claim 3, the curtain (46) includes a second joint between second (D) and third (F) segments in Youngs, and when provided with the fold line joint of Swiss, the second joint would also be a fold line allowing the second (D) and third (F) segments to fold on top of each other.
Regarding claim 4, when provided with the fold line joint of Swiss, the joint (68) would divide the curtain (46) such that the second (D) and third (F) segments extend between opposite parallel edges (vertical edges of D and F in figure 1) such that the curtain is foldable between lateral edges (same as edges 64 and 66 of C and Din figure 3) in Youngs.
Regarding claim 5, both joints (68) are between the transversal edges (upper and lower edges figure 1) and the joints (68) are parallel in Youngs.
Regarding claim 6, the curtain (46) has a thickness (figure 3) and, when provided with the fold line joint of Swiss, the joint (68) would include a thinning portion (figure 2 Swiss) having a thickness smaller than the curtain (fold line 4 thinner than segments 6 Swiss) in Youngs.
Regarding claim 7, the fold line joint (2) does not have a crease line in Swiss (i.e. Swiss is similar to applicant’s embodiment of figure 4d, not 4e), however, a crease score line 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 curtain of Youngs, having the fold line joint of Swiss as motivated by Depperman, with the crease line shaped joint because replacing one joint shape with another would cause no change in the function of the joint and would yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (see also MPEP 2144.04 IV Section B change in shape obvious).
Regarding claim 8, the fold line joint (2) comprises a first cut and opposite second cut (figure 2) in Swiss and when provided to Youngs the cuts would be on opposite sides of the curtain (46).
Regarding claim 9, the curtain (46) has first and second surfaces (horizontal surfaces figure 3) and, when provided with the fold line joint of Swiss, the first fold line would be on the first surface such that the curtain (46) folds along the line with the second surfaces of the first (c) and second (D) segments facing each other in the folded state in Youngs.
Regarding claim 10, the curtain (46) has first and second surfaces (horizontal surfaces figure 3) and, when provided with the fold line joint of Swiss, the second fold line would be on the first surface such that the curtain (46) folds along the line with the second surfaces of the second (D) and third (F) segments facing each other in the folded state in Youngs.
Regarding claim 11, when provided with the fold line joint of Swiss, the rollable curtain member (46) would be foldable such that in the folded state the first (C) and the second segments (D) are at least partly on top and in contact with each other and the second (D) and the third segments (F) are at least partly on top and in contact with each other in Youngs.
Regarding claim 12, the curtain (46) is part of a roll-up door assembly with a drum (20) and an engine (32), wherein the rollable door curtain (46) is attached to the drum (20) at a top distal portion (figures 1 and 2) of the rollable door curtain (46) and the engine (32) is arranged to roll and unroll the rollable door curtain (46) around the drum (20) such that the rollable door curtain (46) is movable along the longitudinal direction (vertical figure 1) to cover and uncover the door opening (12) in Youngs.
Regarding claims 13-15, the method steps would inevitably follow the apparatus as detailed above.
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
