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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits in application 18/208,873, filed 6/12/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Oath/Declaration
No Oath has been filed in this application.
Drawings
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: 1(see at least para. [0049]).
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: 150(see at least para. [0077]).
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.
The drawings are objected to because reference numbers 122 and 168 lack a reference line to show what element is begin referred to(see Figs. 7 and 8).
The drawings are objected to because the term “mounting bracket”” is noted as the same as element 28(second leg of the housing) and therefore the features of Fig. 6 are unclear. Elements of the invention should be deleted from the drawings(in Figs. 6-8) and the elements discussed within the specification including reference numbers corresponding thereto included in the drawings. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "30" and "32" have both been used to designate actuator(see para. [0068]). 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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
In claim 1, line 8, “the ramp” has no antecedent basis.
In claim 2, lines 1-2, “door slides on the pair of tracks” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear as to how the door and tracks interrelate since in claim 1, line 1 the “door is configured to slide on a pair of tracks”. By changing the phrase in claim 1 to “door slides on a pair of tracks” the rejection would be overcome.
In claim 5, lines 2-3, “an extended position” and “a retracted position” are not clear how the positions relate to the positions defined in claim 1, line 6. By changing the phrases to “the extended position” and “the retracted position”, respectively, the rejections would be overcome.
In claim 7, it is not clear how “a ramp” relates to “the ramp in claim 1.
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.
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 1-2, 4-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Luebeck(U.S. PA6t. Appl. Publ. 2022/0049524; cited on PTO 892, PGPubl.8/19/2019).
Luebeck discloses a roll-up door locking system comprising:
a roll-up door(20, see Fig. 1 and para. [0028]) configured to slide on a pair of tracks(24, 26, see para. [0028] and Fig. 1) on opposite sides of the roll-up door between an open configuration and a closed configuration(see para. [0028]);
an actuator(70) mounted adjacent at least one of the tracks(see Fig. 3), wherein the actuator comprises a piston(considered 70 as the element moves lock 72) having a contacting block(72, see Fig. 3) on an end thereof, wherein the piston moves via the actuator between an extended position and a retracted position(see para. [0034]); and
an engagement element(78, see Fig. 3) extending from the door, wherein the engagement element is configured to contact the block on the piston of the actuator(see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Luebeck discloses the roll-up door locking system of claim 1 wherein the roll-up door slides on the pair of tracks via a plurality of rollers extending from the door and engaging the pair of tracks(the door is a “roll up door” and therefore considered to roll on the tracks meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Luebeck discloses the roll-up door locking system of claim 1 wherein the actuator is controlled via a wireless signal(see at least paras. [0030] – [0032] and [0038] – [0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Luebeck discloses the roll-up door locking system of claim 1 wherein the actuator selectively moves the contacting block when the actuator moves the piston between an extended position and a retracted position, wherein when the actuator is in the extended position, the contacting block is configured to contact the engagement element when the roll-up door is in the closed configuration(see para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 6, Luebeck discloses the roll-up door locking system of claim 5 wherein when the actuator is in the retracted position, the contacting block is configured to be disengaged from the engagement element, allowing the roll-up door to move from the closed configuration to the open configuration(see para. [0034] – [0035] and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7. Luebeck disclosed the roll-up door locking system of claim 1 wherein the contacting block is a ramp(74, see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Luebeck discloses the roll-up door locking system of claim 7 wherein the ramp has an angled face(74) and a horizontal face(80), wherein the horizontal face is on an underside of the ramp(see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Luebeck discloses the roll-up door locking system of claim 8 wherein the horizontal face(80) of the ramp is configured to contact the engagement element(78) and maintain the door in the closed configuration(see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Luebeck discloses the roll-up door locking system of claim 1 wherein the contacting block is a pin(72 is considered a “pin”).
Regarding claim 11, Luebeck discloses the roll-up door locking system of claim 1 wherein the engagement element(72) is selected from the group of a ramp, a block(block 78, see Fig. 3), and a bracket.
Regarding claim 12, Luebeck discloses the roll-up door locking system of claim 1 wherein the engagement element is a ramp(72) having a horizontal face(top of 78) and an angled face(side of 78, and 76 on side 78), wherein the horizontal face is on an upper side of the ramp(see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Luebeck discloses the roll-up door locking system of claim 12 wherein the horizontal face(80) of the ramp(72) is configured to contact the contacting block(72) when the door is in the closed configuration.
Regarding claim 17, Luebeck discloses the roll-up door locking system of claim 1 wherein the actuator(70) is mounted to a surface that is coplanar with the roll-up door when the roll-up door is in the closed configuration(see Fig. 3).
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.
Or in the alternative,
Claims 1-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luebeck.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Luebeck discloses the roll-up door locking system of claim but lacks the actuator being a piston/solenoid.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the specific actuator used(see para. [0063])
Therefore, the specific actuator chosen is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the lock and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 2, Luebeck discloses the roll-up door locking system of claim 1, but lacks the specific discussion of rollers.
The use of rollers is well known in the roll door art.
Therefore, the use of rollers with the door of Luebeck would have been well within the purview of a skilled artisan to enable better movement of the door with respect to the slats.
Regarding claim 18, Luebeck discloses the roll-up door locking system of claim 1 wherein the actuator is mounted to a surface but lacks the surface being orthogonal to the roll-up door when the roll-up door is in the closed configuration.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the specific location of the actuator(see paras. [0027] – [0028])
Therefore, the specific location of the actuator chosen is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the lock and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claims 4-13 and 17, see the rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No prior art of record shows a roll up door having a lock with an actuator having a piston with a block retractable therefrom, and an engagement element on the door movable between an extended position and a retracted position, as in claim 14, or a roll up door having a lock with an actuator having a piston with a block retractable therefrom, the contacting block formed from a plurality of hinged linkages, the piston extends the linkages via the actuator from a protruding configuration and a flat configuration, as in claim 19, nor any motivation to do so.
Prior Art
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 BETH A. STEPHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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.
BETH A. STEPHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Stephan/