DETAILED ACTION
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, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 3/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-11 will be examined hereafter.
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 structure of “an automated operation assembly operable between the closed state of the modular door and an automated open state in which the modular door frame is moved relative to the trailer frame to provide access to the cargo space of the trailer while the first and second hinged door panels remain proximate to each other”, as claimed in claim 2 (i.e. no structure of “automated operation assembly” that is “operable between the closed state of the modular door and an automated open state in which the modular door frame is moved relative to the trailer frame to provide access to the cargo space” is shown in the Figures), and “the automated operation assembly comprises an external door operator providing power for movement of the modular door frame relative to the trailer frame”, as claimed in claim 3 (i.e. “an automated operation assembly” that comprises “an external door operator” is not shown in the Figures), and “wherein an external door operator engages the one or more lifting members to slide the modular door frame relative to the trailer frame to transition the automated operation assembly from the closed state to the automated open state”, as claimed in claim 11 (an external door operator is not shown in the Figures such that it “engages the one or more lifting members”), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites “an automated operation assembly operable between the closed state of the modular door and an automated open state in which the modular door frame is moved relative to the trailer frame to provide access to the cargo space of the trailer while the first and second hinged door panels remain proximate to each other”. The subject matter of “an automated operation assembly” as claimed is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner notes that the only depiction in the drawings of “an automated operation assembly operable between the closed state of the modular door and an automated open state in which the modular door frame is moved relative to the trailer frame” is element 140, which is simply a box in the diagram illustration of Figure 1.
The disclosure as originally filed gives no indication as to the actual structure of the claimed “automated operation assembly”, and how it would be capable of moving the modular door frame (150) with respect to the trailer frame (110). Applicants paragraph
[0335] recites “when the modular door 220 transitions to the open state via operation of the automated operation assembly 140, the modular door frame 150 does move relative to the trailer frame 110”, and paragraph [0037] recites “if the trailer 200 is to be loaded at a distribution center or loading dock that does have an instance of the external door operator 160 or is otherwise able to provide automation with respect to loading operations, the automated operation assembly 140 may be employed to lift the modular door 220 physically (thereby carrying the entire manual operation assembly 130 therewith) to remove the modular door frame 150 from contact with the trailer frame 110 to transition to the open state as shown in FIG. 4”. Examiner notes that “the open state as shown in FIG. 4” is simply the modular door (220) floating in midair, with no “automated operation assembly” shown, and it is entirely unclear how this lifting operation would occur, and therefore the structure and functionality of the “automated operation assembly” is not sufficiently disclosed and is entirely unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-11 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
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 2-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “an automated operation assembly operable between the closed state of the modular door and an automated open state in which the modular door frame is moved relative to the trailer frame to provide access to the cargo space of the trailer while the first and second hinged door panels remain proximate to each other”. This renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear what is being claimed by the claim term “an automated operation assembly”. Examiner notes that the “automated operation assembly” is identified in the specification as element 140, and the only drawing that illustrates element 140 is simply a box in the diagram illustration of Figure 1, showing that the “automated operation assembly” is contained with the modular door frame of the modular door. However, it is entirely unclear what is being claimed by “an automated operation assembly”, and it is unclear how the “automated operation assembly” is “operable” between the closed state of the modular door and an automated open state (i.e. how is element 140 “operable” between these states?). The metes and bounds of the term “automated operation assembly” are therefore unclear, and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the automated operation assembly comprises an external door operator providing power for movement of the modular door frame relative to the trailer frame”. This limitation is entirely unclear and renders the claim indefinite (i.e. how does the external door operator “provide power for movement of the modular door frame relative to the trailer frame”? What is being claimed by the term “power”? Is the “external door operator” being claimed to provide electricity to the door system?) Examiner notes that the only depiction of “an external door operator” in the figures is element 160, which is simply a box in the diagram illustration of Figure 1. Applicants paragraph [0031] recites “the external door operator 160 may also take numerous different forms such as, for example, a forklift, pallet jack, or other device capable of elevating or lifting the modular door 120 as described herein”. This, however, only makes the claim more unclear, since “an automated operation assembly operable between the closed state of the modular door and an automated open state in which the modular door frame is moved relative to the trailer frame” is recited in claim 1, and claim 2 recites “the automated operation assembly comprises an external door operator providing power for movement of the modular door frame”. How does the “automated operation assembly” comprise the “a forklift, pallet jack, or other device”? What exactly is being claimed? The metes and bounds of the term “external door operator” are therefore unclear, and appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-11 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
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 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ban (US 2016/0257238)
Regarding claim 1, Ban discloses a modular door system for an over the road (OTR) trailer (element 106) or protected truck body, the modular door system comprising: a manually operated door assembly (element 100, see at least paragraph [0039], “The rotation of the doors 108 and 110 about the vertical axes 112 and 114 can occur manually, and/or can by actuated with any form of actuation, mechanical, and/or hydraulic means known to the skilled person.”); a manually operated lock system (See at least paragraph [0042], “Any other (e.g., similar) manual or automated locking mechanism or means known to the skilled person can also be used in addition or in place of the aforementioned locking mechanisms”, also see claims 5-6); and a door frame structure (See at least paragraph [0014], “Alternatively or additionally, the tail door assembly can comprise a frame structure around the left and right doors”) [configured to mount the manually operated door assembly and be removably connected to the OTR trailer or protected truck body]*.
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a modular door system, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the modular door system disclosed by Ban is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Ban discloses wherein the door frame structure comprises a modular door frame (See at least paragraph [0014], “Alternatively or additionally, the tail door assembly can comprise a frame structure around the left and right doors”) to selectively operably couple the modular door system to a trailer frame (element 104) of the OTR trailer; wherein the manually operated door assembly comprises a first hinged door panel (element 108) operably coupled to a first side frame member on a first lateral side of the modular door frame and a second hinged door panel (element 110) operably coupled to a second side frame member on a second lateral side of the modular door frame, [the first and second hinged door panels being manually operable to swing between a closed state of the modular door and a manual open state in which the first and second hinged door panels are pivoted away from each other to provide access to a cargo space of the trailer]*; and wherein the modular trailer door system further comprises an automated operation assembly (at least elements 120 and 126) operable between the closed state of the modular door and an automated open state in which the modular door frame is moved relative to the trailer frame to provide access to the cargo space of the trailer while the first and second hinged door panels remain proximate to each other.
Regarding claim 3, Ban discloses wherein the automated operation assembly comprises an external door operator (elements 120 and 126) providing power for movement of the modular door frame relative to the trailer frame.
Regarding claim 4, Ban discloses wherein the modular door frame moves relative to the trailer frame when transitioning to the automated open state without any part of the manually operated door assembly extending into the cargo space (See at least Figures 5-6).
Regarding claim 5, Ban discloses wherein the modular door frame is completely removed from contact with the trailer frame in the automated open state (This feature is explicitly shown in Figure 6).
Regarding claim 10, Ban discloses wherein the modular door frame comprises a bottom frame member extending between respective bottom ends of the first and second side frame members and a top frame member extending between respective top ends of the first and second frame members (See at least paragraph [0014], “Alternatively or additionally, the tail door assembly can comprise a frame structure around the left and right doors”) and wherein the bottom frame member comprises a locking plate (paragraph [0044], “steel plate”), the locking plate comprising a locking aperture through which a locking projection (paragraph [0044], “nuts and bolts”) extending from the trailer frame passes to enable the modular door frame to be locked in proximity to the trailer frame (See at least paragraph [0044], “The tail door assembly 100 can be mounted by means of a steel plate and non-permanent fasteners such as nuts and bolts into the chassis 104. The first and second sets of actuators 120 and 126 are positioned between this part of the chassis 104 and the tail door assembly 100. The coupling connections between the actuators 120 and 126 and the chassis 104 and the tail door assembly 100 are also through means of non-permanent fasteners described above”.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by EP1800945.
Regarding claim 1, EP1800945 discloses a modular door system for an over the road (OTR) trailer or protected truck body, the modular door system comprising: a manually operated door assembly (considered at least element 6); a manually operated lock system (considered at least element 7c); and a door frame structure (See Figures 1-4, considered at least “frame” of element 2) [configured to mount the manually operated door assembly and be removably connected to the OTR trailer or protected truck body]*.
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a modular door system, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the modular door system disclosed by EP1800945 is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, EP1800945 discloses wherein the door frame structure comprises a modular door frame to selectively operably couple the modular door system to a trailer frame of the OTR trailer (See Figures 1-4); wherein the manually operated door assembly comprises a first hinged door panel (Figures 1-4, left element 6a) operably coupled to a first side frame member on a first lateral side of the modular door frame and a second hinged door panel (Figures 1-4, right element 6a) operably coupled to a second side frame member on a second lateral side of the modular door frame, [the first and second hinged door panels being manually operable to swing between a closed state of the modular door and a manual open state in which the first and second hinged door panels are pivoted away from each other to provide access to a cargo space of the trailer]*; and wherein the modular trailer door system further comprises an automated operation assembly (considered at least element 3, see paragraphs [0025-0026], “the lowering means 3 comprise joints 3a defining a lowering axis 3b at a lower edge of the cargo door 1, and motor elements 3c suitable for rotating at least part of the portions 1a around the lowering axis 3b. Preferably the motor elements 3c comprise a plurality of hydraulic cylinders that are activated automatically and are suitable for supporting the tailgate even in the case of considerable loads and similar. Figures 2 and 3 show tailgates 2 provided with two hydraulic cylinders. There can be only one hydraulic cylinder and the same can be replaced by an electrically controlled actuator”) operable between the closed state of the modular door and an automated open state in which the modular door frame is moved relative to the trailer frame to provide access to the cargo space of the trailer while the first and second hinged door panels remain proximate to each other.
Regarding claim 3, EP1800945 discloses wherein the automated operation assembly comprises an external door operator providing power for movement of the modular door frame relative to the trailer frame (See paragraphs [0025-0026]).
Regarding claim 4, EP1800945 discloses wherein the modular door frame moves relative to the trailer frame when transitioning to the automated open state without any part of the manually operated door assembly extending into the cargo space (See Figures 1-5).
Allowable Subject Matter
As best understood, Claims 6-9 and 11 could potentially be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. However, due to the numerous issues identified above regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b), patentability of the claims remains unclear, and any amendments to the claims would require further search and consideration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN B REPHANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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.
/JUSTIN B REPHANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3634