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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 10 recites “a diameter of the cable groove”, but this is interpreted as “a diameter of the drive drum” which is more consistent with the specification.
Lines 12-13 recite “wherein the stepped arrangement continuously increases from the first cable groove end to the intermediate cable groove position having a greatest drive drum diameter”. This is interpreted as best understood as requiring the stepped arrangement to continuously increase from the first cable groove end to the intermediate cable groove position, with the greatest diameter of the drive drum being at the intermediate cable groove position. It is recommended to amend this to recite something similar to the following: “the diameter of the intermediate cable groove position being greater than a diameter at any point along the axis of the drive drum”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2, 6, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over East (US 7343958) in view of Gayle (US 2370029).
Regarding claim 1, East teaches (figs. 6-9) a drive drum (224) for an overhead door operating system, the drive drum comprising:
a cable groove (262 shown in fig. 8) having a first cable groove end (at 282) and a second cable groove end (at 280) where the cable groove winds about a perimeter of the drive drum helically in a direction of an axis of the drive drum from the first cable groove end to the second cable groove end (fig. 8, column 5 lines 21-27); and
a drive drum diameter (224 has dimensions and thus a diameter) at the first cable groove end (282) and a drive drum diameter at the second cable groove end (280) are less than a drive drum diameter at an intermediate cable groove position (at 264 in fig. 8) between the first cable groove end and the second cable groove end (fig. 8);
wherein a diameter of the drive drum (see claim objection above) of the cable groove is in a stepped arrangement (it is considered a stepped arrangement as the diameter steps in relation to adjacent windings) in a direction of the axis of the drive drum (as is shown in fig. 9),
the intermediate cable groove position having a greatest drive drum diameter (see claim objection above, the greatest diameter of the drive drum is at the intermediate cable groove position),
wherein the stepped arrangement is additionally non-linear (fig. 9 shows it being non-linear).
East does not teach that the stepped arrangement continuously increases from the first cable groove end to the intermediate cable groove position.
Gayle teaches (fig. 3) a drive drum with a stepped arrangement that continuously increases from a first cable groove end (left end in fig. 3) to an intermediate cable groove position (place with largest diameter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the steps of East so that the stepped arrangement continuously increases along the length of the drum, including from the first cable groove end to the intermediate cable groove position. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of simplifying manufacturing with a cheaper shape to produce.
Regarding claim 2, modified East teaches that the diameter of the drive drum at the first cable groove end (282) is less than the diameter of the drive drum at the second cable groove end (280, fig. 8, after the modification above, this is still the case as the modification simply made the stepped arrangement continuously increase).
Regarding claim 6, modified East teaches that the stepped arrangement continuously increases from the second cable groove end to the intermediate cable groove position (after the modification to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, modified East teaches a hub (270) wherein the first cable groove end (282) extends onto the hub (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, modified East teaches that the hub (270) comprises a set screw extending through at least one side of the hub for anchoring the drive drum to a shaft (column 6 line 21-30).
Regarding claim 11, modified East teaches that the drive drum is interchangeable between each of a standard lift door, a vertical lift door, and a high lift door (intended use language).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over East (US 7343958) in view of Gayle (US 2370029) as applied above, and further in view of Maniak (US 8616093).
Regarding claim 10, modified East teaches a shaft bore (272 in fig. 9) having a shaft bore diameter which mates with an exterior diameter of the shaft (the shaft extends through this), but does not explicitly teach a shaft counterbore of the shaft bore through which the set screw extends wherein a shaft counterbore diameter is greater than the shaft bore diameter.
Maniak teaches a drive drum for a door with a shaft bore (43, see fig. 10) having a shaft bore diameter which mates with an exterior diameter of a shaft (column 7 lines 8-11), and a shaft counterbore (portion with greater diameter and set screws) of the shaft bore through which a set screw (31) extends wherein a shaft counterbore diameter is greater than the shaft bore diameter (fig. 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify East so that the shaft bore has a shaft counterbore through which the set screw extends wherein a shaft counterbore diameter is greater than the shaft bore diameter. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of only the set screw contacting the shaft, resulting in more control for a user.
Claim(s) 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over East (US 7343958) in view of Maniak (US 8616093).
Regarding claim 12, East teaches (figs. 6-9) a drive drum (224) for an overhead door operating system, the drive drum comprising:
a cable groove (262 shown in fig. 8) having a first cable groove end (at 282) and a second cable groove end (at 280) where the cable groove winds about a perimeter of the drive drum helically in a direction of an axis of the drive drum from the first cable groove end to the second cable groove end (fig. 8, column 5 lines 21-27);
a hub (270) wherein the first cable groove end (282) extends onto the hub (fig. 7) and wherein the hub comprises a set screw extending through at least one side of the hub perpendicular to an axis (the axis is left to right in fig. 8) of the drive drum for anchoring the drive drum to a shaft (column 6 lines 21-30) extending through a shaft bore (272) of the drive drum in a direction of the axis of the drive drum (the shaft extends in the axis), but does not explicitly teach a shaft counterbore of the shaft bore formed about the axis of the drive drum for providing a void between the drive drum and the shaft and through which the set screw extends wherein a shaft counterbore diameter is greater than a shaft bore diameter.
Maniak teaches a drive drum for a door with a shaft bore (43, see fig. 10) and a shaft counterbore (portion with greater diameter and set screws) of the shaft bore formed about an axis of the drive drum (axis is vertical in fig. 8) for providing a void between the drive drum and a shaft (can see in fig. 21) and through which a set screw (31) extends wherein a shaft counterbore diameter is greater than a shaft bore diameter (fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify East so that the shaft bore has a shaft counterbore of the shaft bore formed about the axis of the drive drum for providing a void between the drive drum and the shaft and through which the set screw extends wherein a shaft counterbore diameter is greater than a shaft bore diameter. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of only the set screw contacting the shaft, resulting in more control for a user.
Regarding claim 13, modified East teaches a drive drum diameter (224 has dimensions and thus a diameter) at the first cable groove end (at 282) and a drive drum diameter at the second cable groove end (at 280) are less than a drive drum diameter at an intermediate cable groove position (at 264 in fig. 8) between the first cable groove end and the second cable groove end wherein the cable groove is graduated along the perimeter of the drive drum in the direction of the axis of the drive drum (column 5 lines 21-27).
Regarding claim 14, modified East teaches that the diameter of the drive drum at the first cable groove end (282) is less than the diameter of the drive drum at the second cable groove end (280, fig. 8).
Regarding claim 16, modified East teaches that the graduated perimeter continuously increases from the first cable groove end to the intermediate cable groove position (the perimeter is considered continuously increasing as a perimeter is a distance, and as one travels the groove, the total distance traveled will continuously increase).
Regarding claim 17, modified East teaches that the graduated perimeter continuously increases from the second cable groove end to the intermediate cable groove position (the perimeter is considered continuously increasing as a perimeter is a distance, and as one travels the groove, the distance traveled will continuously increase).
Regarding claim 18, modified East teaches that the graduated perimeter continuously increases from the first cable groove end to the intermediate cable groove position and the non-linear graduated perimeter continuously increases from the second cable groove end to the intermediate cable groove position (the perimeter is considered continuously increasing as a perimeter is a distance, and as one travels the groove, the total distance traveled will continuously increase).
Regarding claim 19, modified East teaches that the drive drum is interchangeable between each of a standard lift door, a vertical lift door, and a high lift door (intended use language).
Regarding claim 20, modified East teaches that the cable groove is graduated along the perimeter of the drive drum in the direction of the axis of the drive drum (column 5 lines 21-27).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify East so that the shaft bore has a shaft counterbore of the shaft bore formed about the axis of the drive drum for providing a void between the drive drum and the shaft and through which the set screw extends wherein a shaft counterbore diameter is greater than a shaft bore diameter. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of only the set screw contacting the shaft, resulting in more control for a user.
The combination teaches all the limitations as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW R SHEPHERD whose telephone number is (571)272-5657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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 Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights