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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to for reciting “the first switch” without previously reciting “a first switch.” It is understood that the first switch is a first of the plurality of switches since a plurality of switches were defined in claim 1.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 requires “the detecting means is a photoelectric sensor and the sensing means is a beam of light.” Claim 14 depends from claim 12 which sets forth for “detecting means to cause a means for sensing to extend a first extent…the detecting means to cause a sensing means to extend…a second extent.” The disclosure fails to describe how a photoelectric sensor and beam of light are capable of extending first and second extents. The disclosure only refers to a photoelectric sensor and beam of light in paragraphs [0076]-[0077] and shown in Figure 12. Neither element is shown nor described to have sensing means as a beam of light that extends first extent or second extent. The disclosure fails to provide adequate written description for understanding the invention.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-13, 16, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanuka (US 9,410,372).
Regarding claim 1, Hanuka discloses an apparatus comprising:
a plurality of switches (1210; Fig 12) to be distributed along an interior of a guide (interior walls of 120) for a door (Figs 1 and 12; note Fig 9 shows the plurality of contacts along the interior of the guide but the switch relied upon is of the embodiment shown in Fig 12 which is an alternative to the contacts shown in Fig 9),
PNG
media_image1.png
730
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the switches to switch between a first state (spring extended) and a second state (spring compressed), the switches in the first state to extend into a path of a door curtain of the door (Figs 1, 5, 12), the switches to be urged to the second state by the door curtain as the door curtain moves along the path within the guide (spring in contact with the pins of the door; col 6, lines 9-14); and
PNG
media_image2.png
148
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a controller (control box) to identify when the door curtain transitions from an operational state to a breakaway state based on a signal from a first switch of the plurality of switches, the operational state corresponding to when a lateral edge of the door curtain is enclosed by the guide as the door curtain moves between open and closed positions, the breakaway state corresponding to when a portion of the lateral edge of the door curtain below an upper end of the guide breaks away from the guide (col 5, lines 33-47; when there is a change in circuit resistance and the electrical contact is no longer in contact with the switches it corresponds to a the breakaway state).
PNG
media_image3.png
354
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hanuka discloses wherein the first switch is to communicate a first signal when the first switch is in the first state (electrical contact is made) and a second signal when the first switch is in the second state (when electrical contact is cut, an alarm is triggered).
Regarding claim 3, Hanuka discloses wherein the switches are spring-loaded to urge the switches into the path of the door curtain (switch 1210 is a spring).
Regarding claim 4, Hanuka discloses wherein the guide includes a support structure (120) extending along a length of the guide.
Regarding claim 5, Hanuka discloses wherein the support structure provides a seal along the lateral edge of the door curtain (the support structure encloses the lateral edge therefore providing a seal).
Regarding claim 6, Hanuka wherein the support structure is disposed within a cavity of the guide (the guide has a cavity defined by the walls).
Regarding claim 7, Hanuka discloses wherein the support structure corresponds to a surface of the guide (inner wall of the guide).
Regarding claim 9, Hanuka discloses wherein the switches are to extend farther from the support structure when in the first state (inoperable state) than the switches extend from the support structure when in the second state (operational state).
Regarding claim 10, Hanuka discloses wherein the switches are positioned beyond the lateral edge of the door curtain and extend in a direction aligned with a plane defined by the path of the door curtain (pin of the curtain extends into the switch compresses the switch therefore the switch is understood to be beyond the lateral edge).
Regarding claim 11, Hanuka discloses wherein the switches (1210) are to contact an outermost edge (pins are the outermost) of the lateral edge of the door curtain as the door curtain moves along the path, the outermost edge extending between a front face and a rear face of the door curtain (Fig 12A).
Regarding claim 12, Hanuka discloses an apparatus comprising:
a track (120) to guide movement of a door curtain (rolling shutter) between a first position and a second position (Fig 1), the door curtain to block passage through a doorway in the first position (closed position), the door curtain to permit passage through the doorway in the second position (open position), the door curtain to extend into the track through an opening extending along a length of the track;
PNG
media_image4.png
594
592
media_image4.png
Greyscale
means for detecting the door curtain, the detecting means (1210) disposable within the track (Fig 12), the detecting means to cause a means for sensing (electrical contact created with spring of 1210) to extend a first extent when the door curtain is spaced apart from the detecting means (door not in track, the spring extends), the detecting means to cause a sensing means to extend, based on interaction with the door curtain, a second extent when the door curtain is in an operational state adjacent the detecting means (door in track, the spring compresses), the second extent less than the first extent; and
PNG
media_image1.png
730
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a controller to identify when the door curtain transitions from the operational state to a breakaway state based on a signal from the detecting means, the breakaway state corresponding to when a portion of a lateral edge of the door curtain below an upper end of the track breaks away from the track through the opening (col 5, lines 33-47; when there is a change in circuit resistance and the electrical contact is no longer in contact with the switches it corresponds to a the breakaway state).
Regarding claim 13, Hanuka discloses wherein the signal from the detecting means is to change based on whether the sensing means extends the first extent or the second extent (in contact vs out of contact).
Regarding claim 16, Hanuka discloses wherein the detecting means is a first detecting means of a plurality of detecting means (see Fig 9 which shows a plurality evenly distributed but note that the embodiment relied upon is that of Fig 12), the plurality of detecting means evenly distributed along a length of the track.
Regarding claim 18, Hanuka discloses wherein the sensing means is to extend in a direction substantially parallel to a plane of the door curtain when the door curtain is in the operational state adjacent the detecting means.
Regarding claim 19, Hanuka discloses an apparatus comprising:
a track (120) defining an internal channel along which a lateral edge of a door curtain is to travel (Fig 4), the door curtain to extend into the track through an opening extending along a length of the track (Figs 1, 4, and 5);
an array of switches disposable within the internal channel of the track, the switches constructed to be depressed by the lateral edge of the door curtain in a direction extending away from the door curtain (1210; Figs 1 and 12; note Fig 9 shows the plurality of contacts along the interior of the guide but the switch relied upon is of the embodiment shown in Fig 12 which is an alternative to the contacts shown in Fig 9); and
a controller (control box) to identify when the door curtain transitions from an operational state to a breakaway state based on signals from the switches, the breakaway state corresponding to when a portion of the lateral edge of the door curtain below an upper end of the track breaks away from the track through the opening (col 5, lines 33-47; when there is a change in circuit resistance and the electrical contact is no longer in contact with the switches it corresponds to a the breakaway state).
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.
Claims 8, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanuka, as applied in claims 4, 12, and 19 above.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, in the embodiment relied upon, Hanuka fails to disclose that the support structure includes a plurality of recesses, different ones of the switches to be disposed in different ones of the recesses. However, in an alternative embodiment, Hanuka shows a plurality of recesses (opening receiving 430 in Fig 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the switches (1210) within recesses in order to be mounted and supported. One would be motivated to look to the alternative embodiment for alternative equivalent means. Thus, the detecting means is to be disposed within a recess inside an interior of the track and the recesses allowing for the switches to be at least partially embedded within a surface of the track.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanuka, as applied in claim 12 above, in further view of Rejc et al. (US 6,243,006), hereinafter referred to as Rejc.
Regarding claim 14, Hanuka fails to disclose wherein the detecting means is a photoelectric sensor and the sensing means is a beam of light. However, Rejc teaches that it is known for a door apparatus to have detecting means as a photoelectric sensor and sensing means as a beam of light. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the detecting sensing means of Hanuka with the known detecting and sensing means taught by Rejc. All the claimed elements were known in the art and would not lead to any new or unpredictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanuka, as applied in claim 12 above, in further view of Erkstrand et al. (US 5,829,504), hereinafter referred to as Erkstrand.
Regarding claim 15, Hanuka teaches a spring that is extendable but fails to teach the detecting means is a switch and the sensing means includes an extendable arm and a spring to urge the arm to extend the first extent. However, Erkstand teaches spring arrangements that are known in which it includes an extendable arm (Figs 3-5) with the spring to urge the arm to extend. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the spring of Hanuka with an extendable arm and spring arrangement as taught by Erkstand.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanuka, as applied in claim 20 above, in further view of Erkstrand.
Regarding claim 21, Hanuka fails to teach wherein the surface of the track is defined by a seal disposable within the track. However, Erkstrand teaches that it is known to provide a track with a seal (Fig 2A) to seal the door with the track. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the apparatus of Hanuka with a seal, as taught by Erkstrand, in order to seal the door within the track and protect the door and track.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate Friday.
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.
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights