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
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “between two double-headed pawls”. It is clear from the disclosure that this is not intended on bringing the number of pawls to three, but rather that this is requiring the number of double headed pawls to now be two. Please amend.
Claims 12-15 each recite “the pin”, which does not have proper antecedence in the claim.
Claim 13 recites “the pin is small enough to occupy only a single corner of the cut-out triangular pivot point”. It is noted that there are multiple triangular pivot points, but that this is interpreted as requiring the pin to be configured to fit in a single corner of the triangles at a time. Please amend.
Claim 14 recites “the double-headed pawl and release mechanism”, but should recite “the double-headed pawls and the release mechanism”
Claim 16 recites “the cut-out triangular pivot point”, but should recite “each cut-out triangular pivot point”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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(s) 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English (US 6981538) in view of Curtis (US 20120261081).
Regarding claim 1, English teaches an overhead door locking device (fig. 1), comprising:
a housing (10);
a gear (14);
a double-headed pawl (20), the double-headed pawl engageable with the gear (fig. 2) and cut-out triangular pivot point (it is considered engageable with a cut-out triangular pivot point, even though one is not taught by English); and
a release mechanism (22).
English does not teach two plates, each comprising a cut-out triangular pivot point, that the double-headed pawl is disposed between the two plates.
Curtis teaches an overhead door locking device with two plates (502 and 504), each comprising a cut-out pivot point (508, fig. 16 shows that there is one on each side which allow movement of pin 506) with a locking element (134) disposed between the two plates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify English so that there are two plates, each comprising a cut-out pivot point, with the pin of English sticking into the cut-out pivot points on either side, so that the double-headed pawl is disposed between the two plates. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing more directed movement of the pawl, allowing more control to a user.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that the configuration of a component was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify English so that each cut-out pivot point was triangular. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing more directed movement of the pawl, allowing more control to a user.
Regarding claim 3, modified English teaches that the housing comprises a cover (24).
Regarding claim 4, modified English teaches that a center of the gear aligns with a central hole in a wall of the housing (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, modified English teaches that the central hole and the center of the gear are slidable onto an overhead door shaft (14a in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, modified English teaches that the release mechanism (22) is attachable to an end of the double-headed pawl (as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, modified English does not explicitly teach that the release mechanism is disposed between two double-headed pawls.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify English so that there is a second double-headed pawl with the release mechanism disposed between the two double-headed pawls. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of ensuring good connection between the gear and the pawls.
Regarding claim 8, modified English teaches that the cut-out triangular pivot point is located above the gear (after the claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 10, modified English teaches that the double-headed pawl (12) comprises a substantially triangular head (fig. 2 shows a substantially triangular hear) such that the double-headed pawl is symmetrical (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, modified English teaches that the release mechanism is attachable to the double-headed pawls by a pin (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, modified English teaches that the pin extends outwardly from each of the double-headed pawls, such that each end of the pin contacts one cut-out triangular pivot point (after the modification to claim 7 above).
Regarding claim 13, modified English teaches that the pin is small enough to occupy only a single corner of the cut-out triangular pivot point (as best understood after the medication to claim 7 above, this is the case).
Regarding claim 14, modified English teaches that the pin is removable from the double-headed pawl and release mechanism (the pin is considered removable as with enough force it can be removed).
Regarding claim 16, modified English teaches that an angle between the double-headed pawl and a back wall of the cut-out triangular pivot point is less than 90 degrees in a locked position (after the modifications to claim 1 above, the angle will be less than 90 degrees due to the triangular shape of the cut-out).
Regarding claim 17, modified English teaches that the release mechanism is attachable to an operating arm (capable of this).
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English (US 6981538) in view of Curtis (US 20120261081), and further in view of Dejean (US 6328354).
Regarding claim 2, modified English does not teach that the housing comprises metal.
Dejean teaches a door lock with a housing that comprises metal (column 2 lines 46-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify English so that the housing comprises metal. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the housing being made of a strong and durable material that is easy to manufacture.
Regarding claim 9, modified English does not explicitly teach that the double-headed pawl comprises metal.
Dejean teaches a door lock with a component that comprises metal (column 2 lines 46-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify English so that the double-headed pawl comprises metal. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the pawl being made of a strong and durable material that is easy to manufacture.
Regarding claim 15, modified English does not explicitly teach that the pin comprises metal.
Dejean teaches a door lock with a component that comprises metal (column 2 lines 46-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify English so that the pin comprises metal. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the pin being made of a strong and durable material that is easy to manufacture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R SHEPHERD whose telephone number is (571)272-5657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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.
/M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634