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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits in application 18/665,502, filed 5/15/2024.
Claims 1-17 are pending and examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/15/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 22, “of upper” should be “of the upper”; in claims 2-8 and 10-17, “The apparatus” should be changed to “The garage door screen”; in claims 3, 4 and 11, line 4, “garage” should be changed to “the garage”; in claims 5 and 14, lines 2 and 3, “each end” should be changed to “each of the ends”(all occurrences); and in claim 9, line 33, “of upper” should be “of the upper”;. 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 7-8 and 16-17 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.
In claims 7 and 16 it is not clear how “a drive chain” in line 5 relates to “a drive chain” in claims 6 and 17. By changing “a drive chain” to “a second drive chain” the rejection would be overcome.
In claims 8 and 17, it is not clear what is meant by “in place of first motor/drive chain” rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. By deleting “in place of first motor” and “in place of drive chain” the rejection would be overcome.
In claims 8 and 17, line 3, it is not clear as to how “the drive chain” in line 3 relates to “a drive chain” in claims 6 and 17. By changing “the drive train” to “the second drive chain” and changing “the garage door screen” to “a garage door” the rejection would be overcome.
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.
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 1-5 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCloud(1,989,657; cited on PTO 892) in view of Church(4,141,403; cited on PTO 892) and Lieb(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2018/0344098; cited on PTO 892).
Regarding claims 1-2, 9-10 and 14, McCloud discloses a garage door screen(the term screen is considered “a fixed or movable partition to divide a room” therefore considered to be met by door with panels 1-5, considered the lower, lower middle, upper middle and upper panels see Figs. 1-2) with a swinging door(13, 13a, 13b, see Figs. 1-2),
at least three of the panels(3, 4, 5, see Figs. 1-3) comprise a four-sided rigid frame(13, 13a, 13b, see page 1, right column, lines 26-28) located in the panel(see Figs. 1-2), the four-sided rigid frames further comprising: a hinge(15, 16) swingably connecting a first side of the rigid frame(13, 13a. 13b) to a hinge side rigid frame of the panel(see Figs. 1-2) and an attachment mechanism(22, 23, see Fig. 11) on an opposite side form the hinge; and
a handle(27) located on a second side one of the rigid frames(13b) opposite the first side(see Figs. 1-2).
McCloud lacks the door frames being useable separately and parallel rails
Church discloses a garage door screen(considered door with screens 24, see Figs. 1-2 and 4) with a swinging door(26, 27, see Figs. 1-2 and 4) comprising:
three horizontal panels(10, 11, 12, see Figs. 1-2);
the panels comprise a four-sided rigid frame(26, see column 3, lines 50-52) located in the panel(see Fig. 3), the four-sided rigid frame further comprising: a hinge(28) swingably connecting a first side of the rigid frame(26) to a hinge side rigid frame(21) of the panel(see Figs. 3 and 5);
a first pair of parallel rails(tracks 17, see column 2, lines 20-22 and Fig. 4) that engage with each of the ends of the horizontal panels as the garage door screen(door with screen) is moved from a closed to an open position(see Figs. 1-4) and
a handle(30) located on a second side of the rigid frame(26) opposite the first side(see Figs. 3 and 5), the panels useable separately.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the door screen of McCloud with separately useable doors, such as disclosed by Church, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have been able to use all or portions of the door given the intended use of the screen and design requirements thereof.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the door screen of McCloud with tracks, such as disclosed by Church, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to open and close the door easily given the intended use of the screen and design requirements thereof.
McCloud and Church lack the specific securement of the four-sided frame to the panel frames.
Lieb discloses a door having magnetic strips to secure the door closed.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the door screen of McCloud and Church with securement mechanisms, such as magnets as disclosed Lieb, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have adequately secured the door with respect to the door screen and prevented the door from opening when not in use given the intended use of the screen and design requirements thereof. The specific placement of the magnetic strips is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the screen and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 11-13, McCloud and Church and Lieb disclose the door screen according to claims 1 and 9, further comprising:
a plurality of horizontal panel hinges(6, see Figs. 1-2) that connect the horizontal panels to one another allowing the horizontal panels to move from a parallel plane with respect to each other to being at an angle with respect to each other as the garage door screen is moved from a closed to an open position(the screen along with the panels are moved from an open to a closed position meeting the claim limitation, see page 1, left column, lines 5-7).
Claims 1-17 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alirezaei(10,519,712; cited on IDS filed) in view of Skubiak(8,484,896; cited on PTO 892) and McCloud and Church and Lieb.
Alirezaei discloses a garage door screen comprising four horizontal screen panels(108, see column 6, lines 16-28 and Figs. 1-2 and 6) and a garage door(103, see Figs. 1-2 and 6) having horizontal door panels(see Fig. 2) and motors(102, 107, see Fig. 1; 601, 602, see Fig. 6) and chains(104, 109, see Fig. 1; 603, 604, see Fig 6) to drive the screen and door, hinges interconnecting each of the door screen and garage door panels(see column 6, lines 11-14 and 27-31), and parallel rails engaging with the door screen and garage door panels(106, 111, see Figs. 1-2 and 6) to move the screen and door.
Alirezaei lacks a swinging door in the door screen.
Skubiak discloses a screen door(10, see Fig. 1) having a swinging door(15) hinged to a frame(12, 14) and magnetic closure(18).
McCloud and Church and Lieb disclose the door screen with a swinging door as discussed above.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the screen 108 of Alirezaei with a door, such as disclosed by Skubiak and McCloud/Church/Lieb, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have allowed for access thru the screen without requiring closing of the screen during use thereof given the intended use of the screen and design requirements thereof.
Claims 6, 8, 15 and 17 are rejected, as best understood regarding claims 8 and 17, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCloud and Church and Lieb, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alirezaei.
McCloud and Church and Lieb disclose the door screen according to claims 1 and 9 with a well known manner of opening an overhead door(see column 2, lines 14-17), but lacks a drive chain and motor to drive the drive chain to move the garage door screen from a closed to an open position.
Alirezaei discloses the overhead garage door as discussed above(see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the door screen of McCLoud and Church and Lieb with a drive chain(s) and motor(s) opening device, such as disclosed by Alirezaei, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have easily and adequately opened and closed the door screen given the intended use of the screen and design requirements thereof.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH A. STEPHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
BETH A. STEPHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Stephan/