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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the horizontal shaft and coupling of the motor to the horizontal shaft (as recited in claim 7), the lift-assist member (claim 9), and the drive assembly including a chain and sprocket or gear and belt drive (claims 10-14 and 16) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). These components should be clearly identified using reference characters in the drawings, with corresponding descriptions in the specification. No new matter should be entered.
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.
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 § 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, 7, 9-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rejc (U.S. Patent No. 5,488,982).
Regarding claim 1, Rejc discloses a garage door assembly (12) comprising: a plurality of panels (14) hingedly coupled to each other (via hinge straps 20, 20’); a pair of guide rails (2, 2’) disposed on opposite sides of the panels [FIG. 4], wherein the panels are configured to movably engage the guide rails such that the door panels can move up and down along a path defined by the guide rails between a door closed position and a door open position (column 8, lines 38-55); wherein each guide rail includes a substantially straight lower portion (4) and a curved upper portion (10), the curved upper portion having a variable radius of curvature [FIG. 1]; and a motor (18) operatively coupled to the door panels and configured to move the door panels upward and downward along the path defined by the guide rails (column 8, lines 54-55; column 13, lines 8-17).
Regarding claim 7, Rejc discloses a horizontal member positioned adjacent the curved upper portion of the guide rails (torsion shaft disclosed in column 12, lines 45-48); wherein the motor is operatively coupled to the horizontal member and configured to cause rotational motion of the horizontal member (column 12, lines 37-53).
Regarding claim 9, Rejc discloses that the horizontal member is operatively coupled to a lift-assist member (82) [FIG. 6].
Regarding claims 10-14, Rejc discloses that the motor is operatively coupled to one or more of the panels through a drive assembly (72, 16, 64, 66, 68, 70) [FIG. 5]; wherein the drive assembly comprises a chain and sprocket assembly (column 12, lines 37-53); wherein the chain and sprocket assembly includes an upper sprocket (72) operatively coupled to the horizontal member, a lower sprocket (68), and a chain loop (16) that movably engages the upper sprocket and the lower sprocket [FIG. 5], wherein at least one of the door panels is operatively coupled to a portion of the chain loop (via 74); wherein the chain and sprocket assembly comprises: a pair of upper sprockets (74; each side is provided with the sprocket and chain loop components as disclosed in column 12, lines 37-53) operatively coupled to opposite ends of the horizontal member; a pair of lower sprockets (68) disposed below the respective upper sprockets [FIG. 5]; and a pair of chain loops (16), each chain loop being operatively coupled to and moveable engaging respective pairs of upper and lower sprockets [FIG. 5].
Regarding claim 16, Rejc discloses that the drive assembly comprises a pair of rotating engagement members (72, on each side of the assembly) and a flexible member (16) operatively coupled to the rotating engagement members such that rotation of the rotating engagement members causes movement of the flexible member (column 12, lines 37-53).
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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rejc (U.S. Patent No. 5,488,982).
Regarding claims 3-6, Rejc discloses that the curved upper portion of each guide rail has a vertical extent and a horizontal extent [FIG. 1], and each door panel has a length (length shown in Figure 4) and a height (d, as shown in Figure 3), but does not explicitly disclose dimensions of the vertical and horizontal extents relative to the length or height of the door panels.
It nonetheless would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the height or length of the door panels, and/or the vertical and horizontal extents of the curved upper portion of each guide rail to be within the claimed proportions, in order to provide an appropriately sized guide assembly in combination with a desired size door panel for the selected installation. It is noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Rejc fails to disclose that the door panels are capable of moving down, but this argument is not found persuasive. Column 13, lines 10-17 of Rejc discloses both upward movement (opening) and “lowering of the slatted armor”. The raising and lowering of the slatted armor reads on the claimed limitation “the door panels can move up and down along a path defined by the guide rails between a door closed position and a door open position”. It is further noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the mechanism of the door assembly of Rejc would allow for both upward and downward movement of the door, and would not be limited to only upward movement.
Applicant also argues that Rejc fails to disclose a horizontal member that is rotated by the motor, but this argument is also not found persuasive. Column 12, lines 37-53 of Rejc discloses that the coupling and torsion shaft connects deflecting roller 72 (shown in at least Figure 5 as being adjacent to the curved upper portion of the guide rails) to a corresponding deflecting roller on the other side of the door. The deflecting roller is further disclosed as being rotationally coupled to the torsion shaft, and as being driven by the motor 18, thereby defining a connection in which the motor drives the horizontal torsion shaft to rotate. Column 12, lines 37-53 further discloses that the torsion shaft has a length corresponding to the door width, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the torsion shaft extends horizontally (along the width direction of the door). Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
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 ABE L MASSAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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.
/ABE MASSAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634