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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on April 13, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 25-29 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 13, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the bay door 52 is not shown properly in figure 3. Note that the lead line for reference character 52 appears to identify a shaft rather than the bay door. Figure 3 is also objected to because the roller 58 does not appear to be extending from a side of the bay door 52 and extend into the guide rail 56.
Figure 5 is objected to because the radial screw 113 is not shown in figure 5 even though figure 5 includes the reference character 113 and attendant lead line supposedly identifying the radial screw.
Figure 8 is objected to because the lead line for reference character 114 fails to accurately identify the intermediate axle.
Figure 8 is objected to because the inner axle 152 is not properly shown in figure 8.
Figure 12 is objected to because the pin 117 is not properly shown in figure 12.
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 character “39” has been used to designate both a floor in figure 1 and a ceiling in figures 7 and 9. Additionally, reference character “36” has been used to designate both a side wall in figure 1 and a dividing wall in figure 12.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it appears that “spin” on line 2 of paragraph 103 should be changed to --spins-- to avoid confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because recitations such as “in frictional contact with the at least one bay door” on line 3 of claim 1 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear if the applicant intends to claim the subcombination of the door opening system or the combination of the door opening system and the at least one bay door of the merchandise container. The preamble of claim 1 implies the applicant is claiming the subcombination of the door opening system while the positive recitation of the at least one bay door implies the applicant is claiming the combination of the door opening system and the at least one bay door of the merchandise container.
Recitations such as “allowing to drive” on line 5 of claim 9 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is grammatically awkward and confusing. What element is being allowed to drive the doors?
Pronouns such as “it” on line 3 of claim 13 should be replace with the name of the element to which the pronoun refers to avoid confusion.
Recitations such as “bays doors” on line 6 of claim 17 bring the clarity of the claims into question because they are grammatically incorrect and confusing. Did the applicant mean to recite “bay doors”?
Claims 18-21 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 2-5. Note that both claims 2-5 and claims 18-21 depend from claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-24 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.
Recitations such as “exert movement of” on line 5 of claim 1 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. Is the applicant attempting to recite that the at least one wheel moves the at least one bay door?
Recitations such as “at least one bay door” on line 1 of claim 6 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the at least one bay door set forth above or is attempting to set forth another at least one bay door in addition to the at least one bay door set forth above.
Recitations such as “at least one wheel” on line 2 of claim 6 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the at least one wheel set forth above or is attempting to set forth another at least one wheel in addition to the at least one wheel set forth above.
Recitations such as “the at least one wheel” on lines 6-7 of claim 8 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear to which one of the plurality of wheels set forth above the applicant is referring.
Recitations such as “neighboring bay doors” on line 2 of claim 9 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the first and second bay doors or is attempting to set forth doors in addition to the first and second bay doors set forth above.
Recitations such as “multiple doors” on line 5 of claim 9 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the first and second bay doors or is attempting to set forth doors in addition to the first and second bay doors set forth above.
Recitations such as “line assembly will rotate” on line 7 of claim 10 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear how the line assembly can rotate.
Recitations such as “a monitored position” on lines 4-5 of claim 16 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what element of the invention has the position which is being monitored.
Recitations such as “the plurality of bays doors . . . a second bay door” on lines 5-6 of claim 17 render the claims indefinite because a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 17 recites the broad recitation of a plurality of doors, and the claim also recites a first bay door and a second bay door which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Recitations such as “[t]he merchandise container” on line 1 of claims 18-21 render the claims indefinite because they lack antecedent basis.
Recitations such as “two bay doors” on line 3 of claim 22 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the first and second bay doors or is attempting to set forth doors in addition to the first and second bay doors set forth above.
Recitations such as “neighboring bay doors” on line 2 of claim 24 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the first and second bay doors or is attempting to set forth doors in addition to the first and second bay doors set forth above.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SE 379394. SE 379394 discloses a door opening system for a merchandise container comprising at least one bay door (note that the system only need be capable of operating a bay door of a merchandise container to meet the limitations of claim 1), the door opening system comprising:
at least one wheel 10 in frictional contact with the at least one bay door 1; and
a motor 11 connected in driving arrangement with the at least one wheel 10;
wherein the motor drives 11 the at least one wheel 10 to rotate and thereby to exert movement of the at least one bay door 1 between an open position and a closed position.
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.
Claims 2-5, 15 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SE 379394 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Markow (US 3182705). Markow discloses a wheel 10 which is made of a non-inflated compressible material (see “plastic material” on line 23 of column 3 and figure 2) (claim 2); wherein the at least one wheel 10 comprises a hub 11, a rim 12, and spokes 13 extending helicoidally between the hub and the rim (claim 3); wherein the spokes are bendable (claim 4); wherein the rim is deformable as shown in figure 2 (claim 5); wherein the at least one wheel 10 is made of a non-inflated compressible material (see “plastic material” on line 23 of column 3 and figure 2) (claim 18); wherein the at least one wheel 10 comprises a hub 11, a rim 12, and spokes 13 extending helicoidally between the hub and the rim as shown in figure 1 (claim 19); wherein the spokes 13 are bendable as shown in figure 2 (claim 20); wherein the rim 12 is deformable as shown in figure 2 (claim 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the wheel of SE 379394 with a deformable construction, as taught by Markow, with a reasonable expectation of success to enable the wheel to more consistently contact the door by accommodating for manufacturing tolerances and accommodating for temperature changes.
With respect to claim 15, SE 379394, as modified above, discloses that the at least one wheel 10, as modified by Markow, comprises an axis of rotation and is compressible allowing for variation in a distance between the axis of rotation and the at least one bay door 1 while keeping the at least one wheel in frictional contact with the at least one bay door.
Claims 1, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradford (US 9511960) in view of SE 379394. Bradford discloses a door opening system (labeled below) for a merchandise container 10 comprising at least one bay door 12,
wherein at least one bay door 12 comprises a first bay door 12 and a second bay door 14.
Bradford is silent concerning the door opening system comprising at least one friction wheel and a motor.
However, SE 379394 discloses a door opening system comprising:
at least one wheel 10 in frictional contact with at least one bay door 1; and
a motor 11 connected in driving arrangement with the at least one wheel 10;
wherein the motor 11 drives the at least one wheel 10 to rotate and thereby to exert movement of the at least one bay door 1 between an open position and a closed position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Bradford with a door opening system, as taught by SE 379394, with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a user to automatically raise and lower the bay doors.
With respect to claim 6, Bradford, as modified by SE 379394, would include a first wheel 10 and a second wheel 10, with the first wheel being in frictional contact with the first bay door 12, and the second wheel 10 being in frictional contact with the second bay door 14.
With respect to claim 7, Bradford, as modified above discloses a door axle (labeled below) to which the first wheel 10 and the second wheel 10 are mounted, wherein the door axle is in driving arrangement with the motor 11 and extends a length which covers at least a portion of the first bay door 12 and the second bay door 14.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradford in view of SE 379394 as applied to claims 1, 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Manaras (US 2009/0313898). Manaras discloses a door opening system comprising a driving axle 48 which is an output from a motor 42; a driving sprocket 50 fixed to the driving axle 48; a driven sprocket 64 fixed to a door axle 62; and a main driving chain 60 connecting the driving sprocket to the driven sprocket; wherein the motor drives the driving axle to rotate the door axle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Bradford, as modified above, with a transmission, as taught by Manaras, with a reasonable expectation of success to change the output speed and the output torque of the motor before they are applied to the door axle.
It should be noted that the rotation of the door axle will result in the rotation of the at least one wheel 10.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradford in view of SE 379394 as applied to claims 1, 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Manaras (US 2009/0313898). Bradford discloses a dividing wall 72 (fig. 5) between neighboring bay doors 12 and 14, but is silent concerning a bearing assembly.
However, Manaras discloses a door opening system comprising a bearing assembly 72 mounted to a dividing wall 68, wherein a door axle 62 extends through the bearing assembly 72 and hence through the dividing wall 68 allowing to drive multiple doors with a single motor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Bradford, as modified above, with a transmission, as taught by Manaras, with a reasonable expectation of success to change the output speed and the output torque of the motor before they are applied to the door axle.
Claims 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradford in view of SE 379394 as applied to claims 1, 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Shepherd et al. (US 5207259). Bradford, as modified above, discloses a door axle (labeled below) on which the at least one wheel 10 is fixed, the door axle in driving arrangement with the motor 11 to cause the door axle to rotate and hence to rotate the at least one wheel 10, a reel assembly (labeled below) fixed to the door axle.
Bradford, as modified above is silent concerning a fixture and a line assembly.
However, Shepherd et al. discloses a fixture 60, 64 (fig. 3) mounted to at least one bay door 30; and a reel 42 and line 46 (fig. 5) assembly fixed to a door axle (not numbered, but shown in figure 5), wherein the reel and line assembly is attached to the fixture, whereby upon rotation of the door axle, the reel and line assembly will rotate and pull the at least one bay door from the closed position to the open position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Bradford, as modified above, with fixture and line assembly, as taught by Shepherd et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to enable the counter balance system of Bradford to counterbalance the weight of the door to reduce the amount of force needed to raise the door.
With respect to claim 12, the reel and line assembly comprises a cable 46 or a strap attached to the fixture 60, 64.
With respect to claim 13, Bradford, as modified above, discloses that the cable 46 or strap is in driving engagement with the motor 11 of SE 379394, whereby, upon activating the motor 11, the cable 46 or strap pulls up on the at least one bay door 12 to move it from the closed position to the open position.
With respect to claim 14, Bradford, as modified above, discloses that the reel and line assembly has a reel of a diameter (see figure 7 of Bradford, which discloses that the reel has a diameter), and wherein the at least one wheel 10 of SE 379394 has an operating radius range encompassing half the diameter of the reel. Note that the wheel 10 will need to have a diameter which is greater than the diameter of the reel so as to be able to engage the door 12 which would require the radius of the wheel 10 to be greater than, i.e., encompass, a radius of the reel.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradford in view of SE 379394 and Shepherd et al. as applied to claims 10 and 12-14 above, and further in view of Wilson (US 3836769). Wilson discloses a door operating system comprising at least one wheel 66 (fig. 3) comprises two wheels 66 associated with a single one of at least one bay door 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Bradford, as modified above, with two wheels, as taught by Wilson, with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the size of the wheel while still providing sufficient force to move the door while reducing the amount of weight of the wheel and reducing the cost of manufacturing the wheel.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SE 379394 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vafaie et al. (US 6082433). Vafaie et al. discloses a position detection system comprising a door-mounted position detection component 80a (fig. 3) and a body-mounted position detection component 80 (fig. 3), wherein when the door-mounted position detection component 80a is in close proximity to the body-mounted position detection component 80, a signal indicative of a monitored position being reached is triggered.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide SE 379394 with a position detection system, as taught by Vafaie et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a motor controller for controlling the motor 11 to turn off the motor when the door has reached an open or closed position.
Claims 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradford (US 9511960) in view of SE 379394. Bradford discloses a merchandise container comprising:
a body 10 having a longitudinal axis (labeled below), the body comprising:
a side wall (labeled below);
and a plurality of bays (labeled below) in the side wall;
a plurality of bay doors 12, 14, 16 adapted to controllably close or open the plurality of bays, the plurality of bays doors comprising a first bay door 12 and a second bay door 14, wherein the body comprises a dividing wall (labeled below) extending between the first bay door 12 and the second bay door 14; and
a door opening system (labeled below).
Bradford is silent concerning a door opening system comprising a wheel and a motor.
However, SE 379394 discloses a door opening system comprising: at least one wheel 10 in frictional contact with a first bay door 1; and a motor 11 connected in driving arrangement with the at least one wheel 10; wherein the motor 11 drives the at least one wheel 10 to rotate and thereby to exert movement to the first bay door 1 between an open position and a closed position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Bradford with a door opening system, as taught by SE 379394, with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a user to automatically raise and lower the bay doors.
With respect to claim 22, Bradford, as modified above, further discloses a door axle (labeled below) on which the at least one wheel 10 is fixed, wherein the door axle is in driving arrangement with the motor 11 and extends a length which covers at least a portion of two bay doors of the plurality of bay doors. Note that the door axle will need to extend over a portion of each of the bay doors in order to drive each of the bay doors between the open and closed positions.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradford in view of SE 379394 as applied to claims 17 and 22 above, and further in view of Manaras (US 2009/0313898). Manaras discloses a door opening system comprising a driving axle 48 which is an output from a motor 42; a driving sprocket 50 fixed to the driving axle 48; a driven sprocket 64 fixed to a door axle 62; and a main driving chain 60 connecting the driving sprocket to the driven sprocket; wherein the motor drives the driving axle to rotate the door axle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Bradford, as modified above, with a transmission, as taught by Manaras, with a reasonable expectation of success to change the output speed and the output torque of the motor before they are applied to the door axle.
It should be noted that the rotation of the door axle will result in the rotation of the at least one wheel 10.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradford in view of SE 379394 as applied to claims 17 and 22 above, and further in view of Manaras (US 2009/0313898). Bradford discloses a dividing wall 72 (fig. 5) between neighboring bay doors 12 and 14, but is silent concerning a bearing assembly.
However, Manaras discloses a door opening system comprising a bearing assembly 72 mounted to a dividing wall 68, wherein a door axle 62 extends through the bearing assembly 72 and hence through the dividing wall 68.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Bradford, as modified above, with a transmission, as taught by Manaras, with a reasonable expectation of success to change the output speed and the output torque of the motor before they are applied to the door axle.
PNG
media_image1.png
1652
1148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1652
1114
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1654
1116
media_image3.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
Prosecution Insights