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 vertically spaced rails from claim 1 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 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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…rail system comprising a pair of vertically spaced rails…”. This is contradicts the drawings which show horizontally spaced rails, and also paragraph [0076] which describes the rail system as moving the overhead door assembly up and down. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret vertically spaced as horizontally spaced in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said generally square profile gusset stiffeners" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 2 from which claim 4 depends upon claims “a generally rectangular profile”, not square profile. It is not clear whether the generally square profile gusset stiffeners are the same as the generally rectangular profile gusset stiffeners, or different gusset stiffeners.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said generally triangular profile gusset stiffeners" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said triangular profile gusset stiffeners" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “…wherein the short wing and said long wing are fixed to said outer shell”. This limitation is contrary to the specification paragraph [0082] which describes the long wings being fastened to face 172, which is defined as being on the inner shell, not the outer shell. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret outer shell as inner shell in claim 9.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “said outer shell comprises a hinge pocket in the form of a depression in said outer shell for seating a pivoting portion of said butterfly hinge therein. This limitation is contrary to the specification paragraph [0082] which describes hinge pockets 186 on the inner shell. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret outer shell as inner shell in claim 11.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese (U.S. 2009/0223131) in view of Wright (U.S. 6,578,619).
Regarding claim 1, Wiese teaches a scalable overhead door assembly constructed at least in part of fiber reinforced polymers comprising in an operable mode: a plurality of panel assemblies (see fig 2); said panel assembly having a long side (top or bottom side of panel as seen in fig 2) and a short side (left or right side of panel as seen in fig 2); said long sides of said panel assemblies (top or bottom side of panel as seen in fig 2) positioned adjacent each other in series (as seen in fig 2); a plurality of butterfly hinges (68); said at least one of said long sides secured to an adjacent panel assembly by said plurality of butterfly hinges (68, as seen in fig 2); said panel assembly comprising an outer shell (18); said panel assembly comprising an inner shell (72); said inner shell (72) and said outer shell (18) defining an internal space (58, defined in fig 6 and also seen in fig 12) when coupled together (see fig 12); a plurality of spar stiffeners (36); a plurality of gusset stiffeners (46); said gusset stiffeners (46) spaced in said internal space (see fig 6) and positioned perpendicular to said spar stiffeners (36, see fig 6).
Wiese is silent as to the panel assemblies comprising end caps, or a rail system to guide vertical travel of the panel assemblies. Weise also offers no details of the butterfly hinges.
Wright teaches a similar scalable overhead door assembly where the panel assemblies at one long side are enclosed by a first end cap (as seen in fig 12) and the panel assemblies at a second long side end are enclosed by a second end cap (as seen in fig 12). Wright further teaches a rail system (seen in fig 4); said rail system comprising a pair of horizontally (see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above) spaced rails (32). Wright further teaches butterfly hinges along long sides of the panel assemblies where a portion of the butterfly hinge extends into the horizontally spaced rails (32) to guide vertical travel of said panel assemblies (described in column 6, lines 40-44).
Wiese and Wright are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of overhead panel door assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wiese to incorporate the teachings of Wright and provide end caps to the panel assemblies. Doing so would protect the panel assembly edges as the panel assembly translates vertically. It would have further been obvious to utilize the panel assembly of Wiese on the rail system of Wright. Doing so would provide a rail system to guide movement of the panel assembly.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Weise and Wright teaches the scalable overhead door assembly of claim 1. Weise further teaches wherein some of said gusset stiffeners (46) have a generally rectangular profile (as seen in fig 6).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Weise and Wright teaches the scalable overhead door assembly of claim 2. As best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, Weise further teaches wherein said generally square profile gusset stiffeners (46) are positioned to span between said outer shell (18) and said inner shell (72), and positioned to span between a pair of said spar stiffeners (36).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Weise and Wright teaches the scalable overhead door assembly of claim 1. Weise further teaches wherein said spar stiffeners (36) stand perpendicular to said outer shell (72) in said internal space (see figs 6 and 12).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Weise and Wright teaches the scalable overhead door assembly of claim 1. As best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, Weise and Wright further teach comprising: a short wing (136 Wright) on said butterfly hinge; said short wing (136 Wright) comprising a plurality of short wing fixation holes extending therethrough for receiving fasteners (as seen in fig 12 Wright); a long wing (134 Wright) on said butterfly hinge; said long wing (134 Wright) comprising a plurality of long wing fixation holes extending therethrough for receiving fasteners (as seen in fig 12 Wright); wherein said short wing (136 Wright) and said long wing (135 Wright) are fixed to said inner shell (see interpretation in 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) (as seen in fig 12 Wright).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Weise and Wright teaches the scalable overhead door assembly of claim 1. As best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, Weise and Wright further teach wherein said inner shell (see interpretation in 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) comprises a hinge pocket in the form of a depression (as seen in fig 12 Wright) in said inner shell (see interpretation in 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) for seating a pivoting portion of said butterfly hinge therein (as seen in fig 12 Wright, the pivoting portion of the butterfly hinge is in a depression in the inner shell).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Weise and Wright teaches the scalable overhead door assembly of claim 1. Weise further teaches wherein at least one of said butterfly hinges (68) is aligned in the same plane as said gusset stiffeners (46, as seen in fig 2, a butterfly hinge is located on the outer edges of the panel, the same location where gusset stiffeners 46 are present, as seen in fig 6).
Claim(s) 3, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese (U.S. 2009/0223131) in view of Wright (U.S. 6,578,619) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berger (U.S. 6,062,293).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wiese and Wright teaches the scalable overhead door assembly of claim 1. While Wiese teaches gusset stiffeners (46), neither Weise nor Wright teach some gusset stiffeners have a generally triangular profile.
Berger teaches a similar scalable overhead door assembly where the reinforcing bars, including gusset stiffeners, can include several shapes, including a generally triangular profile (as seen in fig 8a-8w, it is known for reinforcing bars of a panel assembly to be in several profile shapes, fig 8t depicts a generally triangular profile).
Wiese, Wright, and Berger are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of overhead panel door assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Wiese and Wright to incorporate the teachings of Berger and provide gusset stiffeners with a generally triangular profile. Doing so would provide a gusset stiffener which may be stronger to better resist wind blasts, as taught by Berger in column 1, lines 58-61.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wiese and Wright teaches the scalable overhead door assembly of claim 1. While Wiese teaches gusset stiffeners (46) positioned to span between said outer shell (18) and said inner shell (72), and positioned between said outer shell (18) and one of said spar stiffeners (36, see fig 6), neither Weise nor Wright teach the gusset stiffeners have a generally triangular profile.
Berger teaches a similar scalable overhead door assembly where the reinforcing bars, including gusset stiffeners, can include several shapes, including a generally triangular profile (as seen in fig 8a-8w, it is known for reinforcing bars of a panel assembly to be in several profile shapes, fig 8t depicts a generally triangular profile).
Wiese, Wright, and Berger are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of overhead panel door assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Wiese and Wright to incorporate the teachings of Berger and provide gusset stiffeners with a generally triangular profile. Doing so would provide a gusset stiffener which may be stronger to better resist wind blasts, as taught by Berger in column 1, lines 58-61.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wiese and Wright teaches the scalable overhead door assembly of claim 1. While Wiese teaches gusset stiffeners (46), neither Weise nor Wright teach the gusset stiffeners have a triangular profile, or that the gusset stiffeners are positioned inside said internal space yet outside a space defined by opposing spar stiffeners.
Berger teaches a similar scalable overhead door assembly where the reinforcing bars, including gusset stiffeners, can include several shapes, including a triangular profile (as seen in fig 8a-8w, it is known for reinforcing bars of a panel assembly to be in several profile shapes, fig 8t depicts a triangular profile). Berger further teaches a configuration in fig 7 where the gusset stiffeners are located inside an internal space yet outside a space defined by opposing spar stiffeners.
Wiese, Wright, and Berger are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of overhead panel door assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Wiese and Wright to incorporate the teachings of Berger and provide gusset stiffeners with a generally triangular profile. Doing so would provide a gusset stiffener which may be stronger to better resist wind blasts, as taught by Berger in column 1, lines 58-61. To locate the spar stiffeners outside the space defined by opposing spar stiffeners would involve a simple rearrangement of parts. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese (U.S. 2009/0223131) in view of Wright (U.S. 6,578,619) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holland (U.S. 3,703,061).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wiese and Wright teaches the scalable overhead door assembly of claim 1. While Weise teaches spar stiffeners (36), neither Weise nor Wright teaches the spar stiffeners have a generally C-shaped profile and wherein a pair of adjacent spar stiffeners form an I-shaped spar stiffener profile.
Holland teaches a similar scalable overhead door assembly where spar stiffeners form an I-shaped profile (as seen in fig 2, it is known for a spar stiffener to have an I shaped spar stiffener).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the noted features of Holland with teaching of Weise since the combination of the two references is merely simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result (KSR rationale B). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is, in the substitution of the I shaped spar stiffener of Holland for the generally rectangular spar stiffener of Weise. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese (U.S. 2009/0223131) in view of Wright (U.S. 6,578,619) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Strickland (U.S. 8,418,427).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Wiese and Wright teaches the scalable overhead door assembly of claim 1. Weise teaches a plurality of suggest stiffeners (46) but is silent as to the gusset stiffeners comprising a flat gusset wall with a plurality of gusset windows.
Strickland teaches a similar panel assembly where gusset stiffeners comprise a substantially flat gusset wall (64, as seen in fig 6); a plurality of gusset windows (58); said plurality of gusset windows extending through said gusset wall (best seen in fig 2).
Wiese, Wright, and Strickland are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of panel door assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Wiese and Wright to incorporate the teachings of Strickland and provide gusset stiffeners with a substantially flat gusset wall with windows extending through the gusset wall. Doing so will decrease the weight of the panel assembly, making the assembly easier to assemble with less force required to open and close.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Wiese and Wright teaches the scalable overhead door assembly of claim 1. Weise teaches a plurality of suggest stiffeners (46) but is silent as to the gusset stiffeners comprising a flat gusset wall with a plurality of gusset windows.
Strickland teaches a similar panel assembly where gusset stiffeners comprise a gusset wall (64, as seen in fig 2); a plurality of gusset windows (58); wherein said gusset stiffeners comprise at least one cross strut (central web of wall between gusset windows 58 as seen in fig 2) formed between said gusset windows (58).
Wiese, Wright, and Strickland are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of panel door assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Wiese and Wright to incorporate the teachings of Strickland and provide gusset stiffeners with a substantially flat gusset wall with windows extending through the gusset wall. Doing so will decrease the weight of the panel assembly, making the assembly easier to assemble with less force required to open and close.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Wiese and Wright teaches the scalable overhead door assembly of claim 1. Weise teaches a plurality of suggest stiffeners (46) but is silent as to the gusset stiffeners comprising a flat gusset wall with a plurality of gusset windows.
Strickland teaches a similar panel assembly where gusset stiffeners comprise a gusset wall (64); a gusset rim (66 and 68) extending perpendicular to said gusset wall in one direction around the periphery of said gusset wall (see fig 6).
Wiese, Wright, and Strickland are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of panel door assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Wiese and Wright to incorporate the teachings of Strickland and provide gusset stiffeners with a gusset rim extending perpendicularly from the gusset wall. Doing so would provide a surface to bond to an adjacent panel, as taught in column 4, lines 25-29.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11,788,344 (teaches panel rail reinforcement devices), US 7,201,207 (teaches a panel assembly with butterfly hinge), US 7,111,660 (teaches a panel assembly with internal reinforcements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Susan M Heschel whose telephone number is (571)272-6621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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 Troy can be reached at (571)270-3742. 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.
/SUSAN M. HESCHEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3637
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631