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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/15/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 969764 to Kuehnel (“Kuehnel”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2011/0293914 to Maurer et al. (“Maurer”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,385,952 to Fishback et al. (“Fishback”). Reference numerals are made with respect to Kuehnel and paragraph numbers are made with respect to a cited machine translation of Kuehnel unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, Kuehnel discloses a method for forming a frameless interior door formed of a rigid foam material (par 00012), comprising the steps of:(a) casting a foam panel 1 (par 0012); (b) of placing at least two reinforcing inserts 3, 4 adjacent one edge of the panel and at least one reinforcing insert 2 adjacent an opposite edge of the panel such that the reinforcing inserts are embedded in the foam; d) allowing the mixture of the polyhydroxy alcohol and the diisocyanate to cure, wherein a frameless door having in situ reinforcing inserts is formed; and (f) coating surfaces of the frameless door with a durable coating (varnish or film; par 0009).
Kuehnel does not expressly disclose that the foam of the frameless door consists of rigid polyisocyanurate/polyurethane foam, and a) providing a mold; (c) providing a mixture of a polyhydroxy alcohol and a diisocyanate and pouring the mixture into the mold;(d) allowing the mixture to foam and cure in the mold; (e) removing the frameless door formed in step (d) from the mold; and (f) coating surfaces of the frameless door from step (e) with a durable coating.
Maurer discloses foamed articles can consists of polyisocyanurate or polyurethane rigid foam (Maurer, par 0064), and a) providing a mold (Maurer, par 0092); (c) providing a mixture of a polyhydroxy alcohol and a diisocyanate and pouring the mixture into the mold (Maurer, par 0092; these chemicals are necessarily combined in order to form polyurethane); (d) allowing the mixture to foam and cure in the mold; (e) removing the foamed article formed in step (d) from the mold; and (f) coating surfaces of the frameless door from step (e) with a durable coating (Maurer, par 0147).
Fishback discloses that foam panels can consist of rigid polyurethane/polyisocyanurate foam (Fishback; col 2, ln 16-19; col 14, ln 7-10) to provide foam door panels with improved flame resistance (Fishback; col 1, ln 37-46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of forming a frameless door of Kuehnel to be cast by a) providing a mold; (c) providing a mixture of a polyhydroxy alcohol and a diisocyanate and pouring the mixture into the mold;(d) allowing the mixture to foam and cure in the mold; (e) removing the frameless door formed in step (d) from the mold; and (f) coating surfaces of the frameless door from step (e) with a durable coating as taught in Maurer with a reasonable expectation of success because a mold will predictably contain material and form its final shape. Moreover,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of forming a frameless door of Kuehnel to have the foam of the frameless door consists of rigid polyisocyanurate/polyurethane foam as taught by Fishback with a reasonable expectation of success because such a material would predictably provide a foam with improved flame resistance. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use rigid polyisocyanurate/polyurethane rigid foam, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 2, Kuehnel in view of Maurer and Fishback discloses that the in situ molded reinforcing inserts are configured to accommodate hinges.
Regarding claim 3, Kuehnel in view of Maurer and Fishback that the in situ molded reinforcing inserts are configured to accommodate a door handle and/or door lock.
Regarding claim 4, Kuehnel in view of Maurer and Fishback that the in situ molded reinforcing inserts are configured to accommodate hanging rollers or a kick plate.
Regarding claim 5, Kuehnel in view of Maurer and Fishback discloses that the frameless molded door is contoured to accommodate an external rigid stile or rail.
Regarding claim 6, Kuehnel in view of Maurer and Fishback does not disclose that the protective coating comprises a paint. However, Maurer discloses that coatings of foam articles can be paint (Maurer, par 0130). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use paint, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuehnel in view of Maurer and Fishback as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,060,291 to Albertelli (“Albertelli”).
Regarding claim 7, Kuehnel in view of Maurer and Fishback does not disclose that the protective coating comprises a polyaspartic or an epoxy.
Albertelli discloses a foam article with a protective coating wherein the protective coating comprises a polyaspartic or an epoxy (epoxy disclosed in Albertelli col 7, In 27-31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use an epoxy, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 3-4 of the Remarks, the applicant argues that Maurer does not teach a polyisocyanurate/polyurethane rigid foam as required by claim 1. The applicant argues that Maurer does not disclose a copolymer of polyisocyanurate/polyurethane. However, newly applied prior art to Fishback discloses doors can be composed of a rigid polyisocyanurate/polyurethane foam for improved flame resistance. See rejection above.
Moreover, applicant argues that Kuehnel discloses cutting a sheet of plastic to a desired shape which is distinct from a molded door as in applicant’s invention and different from Maurer’s cast panel. While Kuehnel does disclose cutting a sheet to a desired shape, Kuehnel also discloses that the foam door may alternatively be cast with inserts cast into the foam (see par 0012 of Kuehnel’s English Machine translation). Therefore, the references do not teach away from each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE T CAJILIG whose telephone number is (571)272-8143. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/CHRISTINE T CAJILIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633