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
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, “gearing mechanism”, should be changed to, “gear mechanism” (for consistency) and in claim 19, “Torsion spring”, should be changed to, --The torsion spring--.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a gear mechanism coupled to the gear wheel for rotating said gear wheel in claim 1, lines 6-7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 32 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 32 recites the limitation "the projection of the lock lever" in line 3. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 19, 20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2015/193075 (“WO`075”).
PNG
media_image1.png
360
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
WO`075 discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, i.e., a torsion spring tensioning tool 10 for tensioning a torsion spring of a counterbalancing mechanism of an overhead door Abstract, wherein the torsion spring tensioning tool comprises
a housing 20, a gear wheel arrangement 21, 42, 36, 60, 70, 90, Fig. 5 adapted to be mounted on a shaft of the counterbalancing mechanism,
PNG
media_image2.png
409
543
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (AP aperture)]said gear wheel arrangement comprising
a gear wheel 60 rotatably arranged in the housing 20, the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 further comprising a gear mechanism speed reduction gear set 40 (41, 42), page 13, lines 3-10 coupled to the gear wheel 60 for rotating said gear wheel, wherein the gear wheel arrangement comprises a fixating arrangement 21, 91, Fig. 5 fix to the gear wheel 60 and
PNG
media_image4.png
546
663
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (42’)][AltContent: textbox (42”)]adapted to engage the shaft of the counterbalancing mechanism @63 and transmit a rotational movement from the gear wheel 60 to the torsion spring, the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 further comprising
a support gearing 42”, annotated Fig. 6, in engagement with the gear wheel 60 such that the gear wheel is arranged between the support gearing 42” and the gearing mechanism 40, 42’.
PNG
media_image6.png
407
436
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 of claim 1,wherein fixating arrangement 21, 91 comprises a plurality of engagement members 92, AP aperture annotated Fig. 5 adapted to engage corresponding engaging members 11:01-16, AP aperture engaging the shaft of the shaft of the counterbalancing mechanism.
Regarding claim 19, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 according to claim 1,wherein the gear wheel 21 comprises a first wheel segment 71 and a second wheel segment 72, wherein the second wheel segment 72 is axially attachable Fig. 8 to and axially detachable Fig. 7 from the first wheel segment 71, wherein the first wheel segment 71 is adapted to be mounted on the shaft of the counterbalancing mechanism via 81 when the second wheel segment 72 is in a detached state.
Regarding claim 20, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 according claim 1,wherein the housing 20 encloses a circumferential periphery of the gear wheel 60, Figs. 1-2 and comprises a first housing part 21 and a second housing part 22 which are movable in relation to each other such that the gear wheel arrangement 60 is detachable from the housing 20, Fig. 4.
PNG
media_image7.png
380
521
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (HOOK)][AltContent: textbox (PIN)]Regarding claim 22, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 according to claim 20, wherein the first housing part 21 is lockable to the second housing part 22 by means of a locking arrangement hook and pin, Figs. 1-2, annotated Fig. 4 above.
Regarding claim 23, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 of claim 22, wherein the locking arrangement comprises a locking element hook or the pin movable between an engaged position Fig. 1 and a disengaged position Fig. 4, wherein the locking element hook in said engaged position locks the first housing part 21 relative the second housing part 22 and in said disengaged position releases the first housing part 21 relative the second housing part 22.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA in view of Coubray et al. (6,257,303 “Coubray”).
PNG
media_image9.png
416
639
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PA (prior art, WO`075) meets all of the limitations of claim 2, including a reduction gear assembly 40 formed of cogged gears 42’, 42” annotated Fig. 5 above as part of a reduction gear system, except for each of the plurality of cogged gears to engage the gear wheel.
Coubray teaches a drive for a tracked door utilizing a reduction gear assembly formed by a plurality of planetary gears 7 each contacting the gear wheel 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of PA with the planetary gears contacting the gear wheel as taught by Coubray for an arrangement capable of a significant reduction in speed of 36 to 1 for applications requiring such ratio and/or as an alternative means of achieving the same results.
PNG
media_image10.png
177
189
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
326
436
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, PA (prior art, WO`075 modified by Coubray) meets the limitations, i.e., the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of cogged wheels 7 are distributed along the circumference of the gear wheel 60 internal circumference. Please note that external cogged gears engaged with the gear wheel 60 are also known in view of cited document Flexforce, partially shown here.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA.
PNG
media_image2.png
409
543
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (AP aperture)]PA (prior art, WO`075) appears to meet all of the limitations of claim 4, i.e., the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 according to claim 1,further comprising an adapter plate AP, annotated Fig. 5 releasably arrangement of bolts around the adapter plate, Figs. 1-3 and 5 mounted to the housing 20, said adapter plate AP being adapted to be mounted on the shaft of the counterbalancing mechanism via AP aperture, annotated Fig. 5. However, in order to expedite the prosecution, PA does not clearly disclose for the AP to be releasably mounted. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the effective date of the invention to reliably mount the adapter plate for ease of service and maintenance, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 5, PA (prior art, WO`075 modified for separation of parts) meets the limitations, i.e., the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 according to claim 4, wherein the adapter plate AP comprises an aperture annotated Fig. 5 for accommodating the shaft of the counterbalancing mechanism.
Claims 6 (in the alternative) and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA in view of Dorma (3,979,977).
PA (prior art, WO`075) is considered to meet the plurality of engagement members of claim 6 as indicated above, since the aperture 63 also engages the shaft and since limitations from specification (e.g., a plurality of engaging pins are not read into the claim), however in the alternative and in order to expedite the prosecution Dorma is utilized.
PNG
media_image14.png
260
727
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Dorma teaches a power tool for applying a rotational force toa spring of a door counterbalancing mechanism using a plurality of fixating arrangements 56-58 adapted to engage corresponding engaging members of the shaft of the counterbalancing mechanism torsion spring @41 and wherein the tool engages a shaft of the mechanism with engagement members AP aperture 54, threaded adjustment pins/set screws 63 and retractable pins 56-58. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of PA with a plurality of engagement pins as taught by Dorma for a more secure engagement with the workpiece with pins being biased to their “in” position for drivably connecting to the tensioning tool.
Regarding claim 7, PA (WO`075 modified by Dorma) meets the limitations, i.e., the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 according to claim 6, wherein the plurality of engagement members 92, AP aperture 54 and threaded adjustment pins/set screws 63 and retractable pins 56-58 modified by Dorma comprises a threaded adjustable pin 63, Dorma and at least one retractable pin 56-58, Dorma.
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA in view of Mullet e al. (7,686,061 “Mullet”).
PA (prior art, WO`075) meets all of the limitations of claim 8, i.e., the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 according to claim 6, except for the plurality of engagement members AP aperture, 92 of the fixating arrangement 21, 91 to forms at least one cogged surface adapted to engage corresponding splines of the shaft of the counterbalancing mechanism.
PNG
media_image15.png
335
550
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Mullet teaches winding and anti-drop assembly for a door counterbalancing system, wherein the shaft of the counterbalancing system has grooves 38 that engage splines 60’ of the engaging member 60 of the tool, Fig. 4A partially shown here.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the engagement members of PA with splines as taught by Mullet for engaging similarly shaped shafts of the workpiece (modification based on the shape 0f the workpiece or for torsion spring tools provided with the ratchet mechanism as taught by Mullet for an anti-drop system.
Regarding claim 9, PA (WO`075 modified by Mullet) meets the limitations, i.e., the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 according to claim 8, wherein the at least one cogged surface splines modified by Mullet forms at least a partial ring gear rim defined by 60’ Fig. 4A Mullet.
Regarding claim 10, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 according to claim 8, wherein the plurality of engagement members 21, 91 forms the at least one cogged surface splines on any one or each of the gear wheel 60 WO`075, i.e., splined AP aperture engaging a splined shaft and a fixating plate 21 attached to the gear wheel 60.
Regarding claim 11, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 according to claim 10, wherein the gear wheel 60 WO`075 having splines per Mullet for engaging splined workpiece (shaft) is formed as a ring wheel 60 and the plurality of engagement members AP aperture, 92 forms at least a part of an internal ring gear rim of said ring wheel.
Regarding claim 12, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 according to claim 10, wherein the at least one cogged surface splined AP aperture forms a gear rim of the fixating plate 21.
Regarding claim 13, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 according to claim 12, wherein the gear rim splined AP aperture of the fixating plate 21 is inwardly facing similar to 60’ of modifying reference Mullet.
Regarding claim 14, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 according to claim 13, wherein the fixating arrangement 21, 91 further comprises a latching mechanism 93, 92 with a latching pin 92 adapted to engage a corresponding groove of the shaft of the counterbalancing mechanism 10:24-25.
Regarding claim 15, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 according to claim 14, except for the latching pin 92 to be spring-loaded, which is considered to be well within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, as an alternative means of engaging the workpiece for ease of operation, e.g., with advantage of easily insertable and detachable form the workpiece.
PNG
media_image16.png
509
285
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA in view of Wessel (3,651,719).
PA (prior art, WO`075) meets all of the limitations of claim 21, except for the first housing part 21 and the second housing part 22 to be interconnected by means of a pivot connection.
Wessel teaches an overhead door torsion spring adjusting tool, wherein a first housing 50 is pivotally coupled @54 to a second housing 58. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of PA with a housing parts pivotally coupled by a pivot connection as taught by Wessel for split housing with a one-piece arrangement avoiding loosing or misplacing one of the pieces.
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA in view of EIDessouky (3,651,719).
PA (prior art, WO`075) meets all of the limitations of claim 30, except for a handle lever 28, Fig. 1 WO`075 to be pivotally coupled to the housing 20 such that the handle lever is pivotable relative the housing between a first and second pivot end position in which the handle lever engages the housing.
EIDessouky teaches a clamping ratchet wrench, with a split housing wherein a first housing LF is pivotally coupled @32 to a second housing 30 manipulated by a
PNG
media_image17.png
291
477
media_image17.png
Greyscale
handle lever 312 that is pivotable relative the housing between a first pivot end position closed, Fig. 14 and a second pivot end position open, Fig. 13 in which the handle lever 58 engages the housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of PA with a housing parts pivotally coupled to a handle by a pivot connection as taught by EIDessouky for split housing with a one-piece and for ease of access to and engaging a workpiece .
PNG
media_image18.png
621
605
media_image18.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (ABUTMENT
ELEMENT)] Regarding claim 31, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 according to claim 30, wherein the handle lever 312 modified by EIDessouky comprises abutment elements defined by hooks of lock 344 engaging 398 or as annotated here, Fig. 14D arranged to engage the housing 20 WO`075 in the first and second pivot end position.
Regarding claim 32, as best understood, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the torsion spring tensioning tool 10 according to claim 31, wherein one of the abutment elements hook @344 is arranged to press [the] a projection engaging the hook of [the] a lock lever 344 the housing when the handle lever 312 is in the first pivot end position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 and 24-29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art alone or in combination, neither anticipated nor suggests flange, a cam structure being affixed to the latching pin in addition to other limitations as recited in claim 16 and a lock lever 60 in addition to other limitations recited in claim 24.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon at this time, are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Evensen Fig. 3, Turner et al. and Frank are cited to show related inventions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI SHAKERI whose telephone number is (571)272-4495. The fax phone number for forwarding unofficial documents for discussion purposes only is (571) 273-4495. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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 Keller can be reached on 571 272 8548. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hadi Shakeri/
November 12, 2025 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723