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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/8/2024 and 8/13/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 “door mechanism” of claim 1 and its dependents 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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3: “a remote controller in communication with a control unit” should read -- a remote controller in communication with the control unit, wherein the remote controller communicates via a transceiver --
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 1-13 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 “mechanical drive system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret recitation as “a mechanical drive system”. Claims 2-13 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “wherein each of the plurality of modular mains power cartridges may be positioned on the power cartridge support in proximity to the control board compartment.” It is uncertain as to whether the recitation is being positively recited. Examiner will interpret limitation as “wherein each of the plurality of modular mains power cartridges is positioned on the power cartridge support in proximity to the control board compartment.”
Claim 5 contains the trademark/trade name “WiFi and Bluetooth”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a wireless transceiver and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Examiner will give the recited “WiFi and Bluetooth” no patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1-6, 9, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferri et al. (US 2018/0305968; IDS).
In claim 1, Ferri discloses (Fig. 1-23B) a door opener system (200), comprising: a motor (66); a mechanical reducer drive assembly (76) mechanically coupled to the motor (66) to drive a shaft (24) for rotating a door mechanism; a control unit (54) attached to the motor (66) and a mechanical drive system (comprising 76), the control unit (54) controlling the motor speed; and a power interface (72) on the control unit (54), the power interface (72) configured to be coupled to one of a plurality of identically sized modular mains power cartridges (58), each of the modular mains power cartridges (58) allowing different power sources ([0045]) to provide power to the motor (66).
In claim 2, Ferri discloses wherein the control unit (54) includes a control board compartment (30) holding the control unit (54), and a power cartridge support (portion of 30 supporting 56), wherein each of the plurality of modular mains power cartridges (58) may be positioned on the power cartridge support (portion of 30 supporting 56) in proximity to the control board compartment (30).
In claim 3, Ferri discloses a remote controller ([0046]) in communication with a control unit (54), wherein the remote controller communicates via a transceiver to the control unit (54; encoder) to operate the motor (66) to drive the shaft (74; [0046]).
In claim 4, Ferri discloses wherein the control unit (54) communicates with the remote controller via one of a wired connection or a wireless connection (wired or wireless controller; [0046]).
In claim 5, Ferri discloses wherein the remote controller includes a wireless transceiver ([0046]).
In claim 6, Ferri discloses wherein the remote controller is a mobile computing device (mobile/smart phone; [0046]).
In claim 9, Ferri discloses a clutch module including a drive wheel (23) mechanically coupled to the motor (66), wherein rotation of the drive wheel (23) rotates the shaft (24).
In claim 14, Ferri discloses (Fig. 1-23B) a modular door opener (200) comprising: a main body (30) defining a control compartment (portion of 30 having 54) and a support section (portion of 30 having 58); a modular mains power cartridge (58) insertable on the support section to provide power when connected to an external power source (AC power; [0045]); a motor (66) coupled to the main body (30), opposite the control compartment, the motor (66) powered by the modular mains power cartridge (58) and controlled by the controller (54); and a worm reducer (76) including a drive shaft (24) mechanically coupled to the motor (66).
In claim 15, Ferri discloses another modular mains power cartridge (58) is insertable on the support section to provide power when connected to another type of external power source (solar; [0045]).
In claim 18, Ferri discloses a clutch module including a drive wheel (23) mechanically coupled to the motor (66), wherein rotation of the drive wheel (23) rotates the shaft (24).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferri et al. (US 2018/0305968; IDS) in view of Chan et al. (US 2022/0162896).
In claim 7, Ferri teaches the system of claim 1, with the exception of wherein the motor is a permanent magnet synchronous motor.
However, Chan teaches wherein a permanent magnet synchronous motor is known to be used in a door opener system ([0008]).
Therefore in view of Chan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to create a compact design of a door opener due to the small axial size of the motor (Chan; [0008]).
In claim 19, Ferri teaches the opener of claim 1, with the exception of wherein the motor is a permanent magnet synchronous motor.
However, Chan teaches wherein a permanent magnet synchronous motor is known to be used in a door opener system ([0008]).
Therefore in view of Chan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to create a compact design of a door opener due to the small axial size of the motor (Chan; [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 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.
Claims 8 and 10-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The cited prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitation of the (in)dependent claim(s), in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the features as presented in the (in)dependent claim(s) with the allowable feature being:
Claim 8: “wherein the mechanical reducer drive assembly includes a plurality of worm gears that mechanically couple the motor to the shaft.”
Claim 10: “wherein the motor includes a motor shaft having a first end mechanically coupled to the mechanical reducer assembly and a second end coupled to a motor bevel gear, wherein the drive wheel is coupled to a manual drive shaft including a drive bevel gear, wherein the drive bevel gear is selectively engageable to the motor bevel gear to allow rotation of the drive wheel to rotate the shaft and disengaged from the motor bevel gear when power to the motor rotates the motor shaft.”
Claim 12: “a magnetic encoder module coupled to the mechanical reducer drive, the magnetic encoder module operable to determine the rotation speed of the shaft.”
Claim 13: “a modular handle that is attachable to the power unit in place of the modular mains power cartridge.”
Claim 16: “wherein the control compartment includes a power connector mateable with a connector on the modular mains power cartridge, and wherein the support section includes a registration feature mating with a corresponding feature on the modular mains power cartridge to hold the modular mains power cartridge to the support section.”
Claim 20: “a magnetic encoder module coupled to the worm reducer, the magnetic encoder module operable to determine the rotation speed of the shaft.”
The examiner found no prior art satisfies all above conditions by itself or as combined during the prosecution period.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sakai et al. (US 2017/0106900) teaches a steering control apparatus being provided which allows mitigation of an adverse effect of a technique for fixing a regulation member to a vehicle body on a phenomenon resulting from execution of steering operation control on steered wheels.
Hall et al. (US 11441347) teaches an overhead door opener for opening and closing an overhead door.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHAD H JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-5pm.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
RASHAD H. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/RASHAD H JOHNSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834