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 .
Priority
The foreign priority claim based on PCT/US2021/058477 filed on November 8, 2021 was not entered because the foreign priority claim was not filed during the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55. For original applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (other than a design application) on or after November 29, 2000, the time period is during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application. In addition, if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the claim for foreign priority must be presented in an application data sheet. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1). For national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371, the claim for priority must be made within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(2). If applicant desires priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) based upon a prior foreign application, applicant must file a petition for an unintentionally delayed priority claim under 37 CFR 1.55(e). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 identifying the prior foreign application to which priority is claimed, unless previously submitted; (2) a certified copy of the foreign application, unless previously submitted or an exception under 37 CFR 1.55 applies; (3) the applicable petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2); and (4) a statement that the entire delay between the date the claim was due under 37 CFR 1.55 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
Since the foreign priority claim based on PCT/US2021/058477 filed on November 8, 2021 has not entered, the concomitant priority to US Provisional application No. 63/110,834 filed November 6, 2020 has not been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on February 2, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the differences between the listed groups are variations in implementation details that remain within the same field of search and would reasonably be searched and examined together.
This is not found persuasive because the applicant has disclosed distinct inventions that would require different search strategies and word searches. For example, the invention of group I includes a worm gear and a worm drive mounted within a two part housing while the invention of group IV includes bolts, ring plates and a sleeve used to attach collars to a worm gear. These two species are clearly different and require different search strategies and search queries.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 2, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) since the lines, numbers, and letters are not sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined as to give the drawings satisfactory reproduction characteristics.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
1376
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “the door” on line 2 is confusing since it is unclear what door the applicant is referring to. Is the applicant referring to the door associated with the overhead door spring system? On line 5, “[t]he door system” is confusing since it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the door as set forth on line 2 or is referring to the counterbalancing system as set forth on line 4.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because the descriptions of figures 8 and 9 in paragraph 19, 10-12 in paragraph 20, 14-16 and 22 in paragraph 22, 17 and 18 in paragraph 23, and 19 and 20 in paragraph 24 are inadequate since each of the figures has not been sufficiently described. In paragraph 27, “view of status one of the fourth embodiment” is grammatically awkward and confusing. It is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. On line 1 of paragraph 44, “spinal-shaped teeth” is confusing since it is unclear what shape a “spinal” shape comprises. Did the applicant mean to recite “spiral”? Finally, the specification is objected to because the applicant has improperly used different language to refer to the same element of the invention. For example, the applicant refers to element “10” on line 1 of paragraph 41 as “a winding device” and improperly refers to element “10” on line 1 of paragraph 42 as “a main box”. Also see “spring units 140” on line 1 of paragraph 65 and “the springs 140” on line 5 of paragraph 68.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “the elastic energy” on line 1 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1 is objected to because “having a door panel” on lines 2-3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention has the door panel to which the applicant is referring. It appears that the applicant is setting forth that the wall structure has the door panel, however, this does not make sense.
Claim 1 is objected to because “along flange portion center line” on lines 13-14 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is grammatically incorrect. It appears that the article “a” should be inserted following “along” to avoid confusion.
Claim 1 is objected to because “together in engagement status” on line 17 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is grammatically incorrect and confusing. It appears that the article “an” should proceed “engagement” to avoid confusion.
Claim 2 is objected to because “three fasteners” on line 1 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the three fasteners includes the fastener set forth above for a total of three fasteners or if the three fasteners is in addition to the fastener set forth above for a total of four fasteners.
Claim 3 is objected to because “means” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear whether or not the applicant intends to invoke 35 USC 112(f). If the applicant intends to invoke 35 USC 112(f), then the applicant is requested to affirm, on the record, that the applicant is invoking 35 USC 112(f) with the language “means” on line 2 of claim 3.
Claim 3 is objected to because “means” on line 7 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear whether or not the applicant intends to invoke 35 USC 112(f). If the applicant intends to invoke 35 USC 112(f), then the applicant is requested to affirm, on the record, that the applicant is invoking 35 USC 112(f) with the language “means” on line 7 of claim 3.
Claim 3 is objected to because “and worm screw” on line 8 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is missing the customary “the” or “said” so as to clearly refer to the antecedent “worm screw” set forth above.
Claim 7 is objected to because “three fasteners” on lines 1-2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the three fasteners includes the fastener set forth above for a total of three fasteners or if the three fasteners is in addition to the fastener set forth above for a total of four fasteners.
Claim 8 is objected to because “said retainer portion” on line 1 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8 is objected to because “to be thinner” on line 10 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention the cover is thinner than.
Claim 8 is objected to because “said worm gear being pivotally engaged with both first through holes” on line 14 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how a single flange portion can be engaged with through holes of both the main body and the cover. See figures 5 and 7 which show the holes 28 and 84 opposing one another such that a single flange portion would not be able to engage both the holes 28 and 84.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullet et al. (US 2005/0189080) in view of Krupke et al. (US 6134835).
Mullet et al. discloses a winding device T (fig. 5) for adjusting the elastic energy of a counterbalance system 25 (fig. 10) of an overhead door system 10 (fig. 1) installed on a wall structure 12 (fig. 1) having a door panel (labeled below) which is movably held within a guidance track (labeled below), wherein said counterbalance system has a coil spring 25, as shown in figure 10, with a stationary end (not shown) and a winding end (labeled below), wherein said stationary end is directly or indirectly fixed to said wall structure 12, and where said counterbalance system also having a central shaft 22 (fig. 4) held within said coil spring 25 (see lines 7-9 of paragraph 28 which set forth that the spring 25 may be located around the shaft 22), said counterbalance system also having a cable (not shown, but set forth on line 5 of paragraph 27) with an upper end and a lower end wherein said upper end is connected with said winding end directly, or through said central shaft, and wherein said lower end is connected with said door panel, comprising:
a worm gear 35 (fig. 5),
said worm gear 35 having a flange portion 34 (fig. 6),
said flange portion 34 having a center through hole 32 along flange portion center line (labeled below);
a worm screw 37 engaged by said worm gear 35; and
a retaining member 40 (fig. 5) adapted to hold said worm gear 35 and worm screw 37 together in engagement status; wherein said center through hole 32 of said worm gear 35 being engaged with said central shaft 22, and being radially fixed together via the hexagonal shaped through hole 32; and wherein said winding device T being detachable from said shaft 22 after engaging with said counterbalance system as set forth on lines 19-24 of paragraph 29.
Mullet et al. is silent concerning the worm gear being fixed fully to the central shaft by a fastener group which has at least one fastener.
However, Krupke et al. discloses a winding device 36 (fig. 1) utilizing a fastener group which has at least one fastener 64 (fig. 6) to fully fix a flange portion 59 to a central shaft 34.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to attach the flange portion 34 of Mullet et al. to the central shaft 22 with a fastener group which has at least one fastener, as taught by Krupke et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to more securely attach the worm gear to the central shaft.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullet et al. in view of Krupke et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
Mullet et al., as modified above, discloses that the fastener group comprises two fasteners 64 as shown in figure 6, but is silent concerning three fasteners which are generally evenly distributed in 360 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an additional fastener 64 and spacing the three fasteners generally evenly distributed in 360 degrees since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claims 3, 5, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullet et al. (US 2005/0189080) in view of Krupke et al. (US 6134835).
With respect to claim 3, Mullet et al. discloses a winding device T (fig. 5) for operation of an overhead door system 10 (fig. 1) having a connecting means 22 (fig. 1) comprising :
a worm gear 35 (fig. 5);
said worm gear 35 (fig. 6) having at least a first flange portion 34 (fig. 6): said first flange portion 34 having a center through hole 32 along a flange portion center line (labeled below);
a worm screw 37 (fig. 5);
a retainer means 40 (fig. 5) to keep said worm gear 35 and worm screw 37 together in an engagement status.
With respect to claim 5, said worm gear 35 is a one-piece worm gear.
With respect to claim 6, said worm screw 37 is a one-piece worm screw.
With respect to claim 8, said retainer portion 40 has a main body 42 (fig. 6) and a cover 41, and a group of second fasteners (not shown, but comprising the fasteners which connect the main body 42 to the cover 41), said main body 42 having three directions: a first direction, a second direction and a third direction, said three directions being generally perpendicular to each other, said worm screw 37 and said worm gear 35 being located and constrained in an opening (labeled below) of said main body, said main body 42 having a generally circular first though hole 58 (fig. 6) whose center line defines said first direction, and having a second hole (labeled below) parallel to said second direction, and having at least one third through hole (labeled below) parallel to said first direction; said cover 41 being generally a flat plate having three directions similar to those of said main body, wherein said cover has a thickness selected to be thinner in said first direction, said cover having a first through hole 39 corresponding to said first through hole 58 of said main body 42, and having at least one second through hole (labeled below) corresponding to said third through hole of said main body; said flange portion 34 of said worm gear 35 being pivotally engaged with both first through holes 58, 39 of said main body 42 and said cover 41; at least one end of said worm screw 37 being pivotally engaged with said second hole of said main body 42; and said second fasteners passing through both said second through holes of said cover 41 and said third through holes of said main body 42 for binding them together, which hold said worm gear 35 and said worm screw 37 within.
Mullet et al. is silent concerning a group of first fasteners having at least one fastener attached to said first flange portion for fixing said first flange portion to said connecting means.
However, Krupke et al. discloses a winding device 36 (fig. 1) utilizing a group of fasteners 64 (fig. 6) having at least one fastener 64 attached a flange portion 59 for fixing the flange portion to a connecting means 34.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to attach the flange portion 34 of Mullet et al. to the connecting means 22 with a group of fasteners which has at least one fastener, as taught by Krupke et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to more securely attach the worm gear to the connecting means.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullet et al. (US 2005/0189080) in view of Krupke et al. (US 6134835). Mullet et al. discloses a winding device T (fig. 5) for use with a general shaft 22 to move an object (labeled below as the door panel) from a first location to a second location comprising:
a worm gear 35 (fig. 6);
said worm gear 35 having a center through hole 32 along a center line (labeled below);
a worm screw 37;
a retainer portion 40 (fig. 6) to keep said worm gear 34 and worm screw 37 together in an engagement status.
Mullet et al. is silent concerning a group of first fasteners having at least one fastener attached to said worm gear for fixing it to said shaft.
However, Krupke et al. discloses a winding device 36 (fig. 1) utilizing a group of fasteners 64 (fig. 6) having at least one fastener 64 attached a flange portion 59 for fixing the flange portion to a shaft 34 (fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to attach the flange portion 34 of Mullet et al. to the shaft 22 with a group of fasteners which has at least one fastener, as taught by Krupke et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to more securely attach the worm gear to the connecting means.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullet et al. in view of Krupke et al. as applied to claims 3, 5, 6 and 8 above.
Mullet et al., as modified above, discloses that the fastener group comprises two fasteners 64 as shown in figure 6, but is silent concerning three fasteners which are generally evenly distributed in 360 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an additional fastener 64 for a total of three fasteners and spacing the three fasteners generally evenly distributed in 360 degrees since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
PNG
media_image2.png
1658
1114
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1654
1118
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1646
1122
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634