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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent 5469658 to Digianni (hereinafter Digianni) in view of US PG Pub 2018/0002975 to Taylor (hereinafter Taylor).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the louver system (claim 1) for a movable barrier (claim 8) is shown in Digianni in figures 1-4 with
a movable barrier panel (10) comprising a first rail (16) and a second rail (14), the second rail (14) being disposed at a position spaced a distance apart from the first rail (16);
a first louver (lowest 22,34 in figure 2a) coupled to the second rail (14) and comprising a first slat portion (22) and a first pivot base (34) and having a first pivot axis;
a second louver (middle 22,34 in figure 2a) coupled to the second rail (14) and offset from the first louver, the second louver comprising a second slat portion (22) and a second pivot base (34) and having a second pivot axis;
a gear train (40,44) coupled to the first pivot base (34) and the second pivot base (34), the gear train (40,44) configured to simultaneously rotate the first louver (lowest 22,34) and the second louver (middle 22,34) between an open configuration and a closed configuration; and
a motor (M) carried on the first rail (16) and configured to drive the gear train (40,44) to simultaneously rotate the first louver (22,34) and the second louver (22,34).
However, the panel is not one of a plurality of section panels in Digianni.
A panel formed as a plurality of section panels is shown in Taylor in figures 1-8 where the panel (110) includes a plurality of section panels (A, B, and C) and the first section (A) includes an insert (120) with rotating members (figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the movable barrier with louver system of Digianni with the sectional panel of Taylor because both single panel and plural sectional panel configurations were known in the fenestration art and the plural sectional panel configuration allowed for use of the louvered panel of Digianni in additional markets such as garage doors.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, the gear train (40,44) comprises: a first gear (lowest 40 figure 2a) associated with the first pivot base (lowest 34 figure 2a) and configured to rotate the first pivot base relative to the second rail (14), the first gear (40) having a cog (40 is a toothed gear); a second gear (middle 40 figure 2a) associated with the second pivot base (middle 34 figure 2a) and configured to rotate the second pivot base relative to the second rail (14), the second gear (40) having a cog (40 is a toothed gear); and a third gear (44) configured to engage the cog (i.e. 44 is a toothed rack engaging toothed gears 40) of the first gear (40) and the cog of the second gear (40), at least a portion of the third gear (44) being configured to translate along a translation axis (vertical axis figure 2a) in a manner that causes the first gear (40) and the first pivot base (34) to rotate on the first axis of rotation (horizontal axis into page in figure 2a) substantially perpendicular to the translation axis and causes the second gear (40) and the second pivot base (34) to rotate on the second axis of rotation (horizontal axis into page in figure 2a) substantially perpendicular to the translation axis, the translation axis being substantially parallel to the first rail (16) in Digianni.
Regarding claim 7 and 14, when the louver system (plurality of louvers 22,34) in the closed configuration, an axis (axis along 34, diagonal in figure 2a) of the first slat portion (22) and an axis (axis along 34, diagonal in figure 2a) of the second slat portion (22) both being offset at a first angle (approximately 0 degrees as louvers are approximately vertical in figure 2a in the closed position) from the translation axis (vertical in figure 2a); and wherein when the louver system is in the open configuration (figure 2a), the axis of the first slat portion and the axis of the second slat portion both being offset at a second angle (angle between diagonal 34 and vertical in figure 2a) from the translation axis, the second angle being greater than the first angle in Digianni.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 11, and 12, Digianni teaches a remote control actuating the motor (M) in column 5 lines 29-34, however, Digianni is silent as to a controller.
A controller is shown in Taylor in figures 1-8 where a controller (150) receives a signal (see connection to user interface in figure 3 and connection to sensor in paragraph [0042]) from a user interface (192) or sensor to operate the rotation system (130) to move the louvers (120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the movable barrier with louver system of Digianni, having the plural sectional panel configuration of Taylor, with the controller of Taylor because the controller provides the known benefit of connecting the operating system (motor in Digianni) to various inputs such as the sensor and user interface to be better able to control the movement of the louvers.
Regarding claims 15, 16, 18, and 19, the method steps would inevitably follow the apparatus as detailed above.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Digianni and Taylor, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above and further in view of US patent 397322 to Whitaker (hereinafter Whitaker).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Digianni does not show the lovers having an indent.
Indented louvers are shown in Whitaker in figures I-III where louvers (B) have indents (c) such that all louvers are parallel to the translation axis (horizontal in figure III) in the closed configuration (dashed lines figure III).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the movable barrier with louver system of Digianni, having the plural sectional panel configuration of Taylor, with the indented louvers of Whitaker because the indents provided the known benefit of allowing the louvers to flush close forming a plain barrier surface as taught in Whitaker in lines 27-30.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Digianni and Taylor, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Official Notice supported by US patent 9416590 to Voegele (hereinafter Voegele).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, the third gear (44) is a rack driven by the motor (M) in Digianni.
Examiner takes Official Notice the belts were old and well known driven members in the art.
Examiner notes applicant has traversed the Official Notice on the grounds that it fails to teach the belt engaging a rotating portion of the motor. Examiner notes that the driven member (i.e. rack) in Digianni engages a rotating portion of the motor as taught in column 5 lines 29-35 (may be indirectly, however, applicant has no support for direct engagement of belt with rotating portion of motor) and thus the traversal does not appear to be proper (i.e. applicant has failed to show that belt drives as a whole were not old and well known, only argued the portion of the claim taught by Digianni).
However, in the interests of compact prosecution a belt drive for a louver is shown in Voegele in the embodiment of figure 7 (with generic details from figures 1-6) where the third gear (32) is a belt configured to engage (indirectly via 24,23,12) a rotating portion of motor (21) to cause the belt (32) to translate along the translation axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the movable barrier with louver system of Digianni with the known driven belt as supported by Voegele because both belts and racks were known driven members and one of ordinary skill in the art substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Digianni and Taylor as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Whitaker.
Regarding claim 17, the method steps would inevitably follow the apparatus as detailed above.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Digianni and Taylor as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 110273634 to Xu (hereinafter Xu.
Regarding claim 21, Digianni doesn’t teach a controller, sensor, the sensor sending signals, or the varying angles.
A controller is shown in Taylor in figures 1-8 where a controller (150) receives a signal (see connection to user interface in figure 3 and connection to sensor in paragraph [0042]) from sensor to operate the rotation system (130) to move the louvers (120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the movable barrier with louver system of Digianni, having the plural sectional panel configuration of Taylor, with the controller of Taylor because the controller provides the known benefit of connecting the operating system (motor in Digianni) to various inputs such as the sensor and user interface to be better able to control the movement of the louvers.
Varying angles are shown in Xu in figures 1-6 where the controller (146) can operate the louvers to various angles (further taught in page 7 of translation provided herewith).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the movable barrier with louver system of Digianni, having the plural sectional panel configuration of Taylor, with the control to various angles because the various angles can better adjust airflow and light transmission based on outdoor conditions (e.g. position of sun, amount of wind, etc.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
IN regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the rejection of claim 1, examiner disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of Taylor and maintains as detailed above that the combination of Digianni and Taylor reads over the amended claim including a plurality of section panels. Taylor clearly shows a plurality of section panels a, B, and C forming garage door 110. Also, Taylor is the secondary reference used to teach the sectional panels including an insert with rotatable members, clearly shown in Taylor figure 5. The louvers in a single sectional panel are from the primary Digianni.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the rejection of claim 8, examiner disagrees with applicant’s characterization of the rail of Digianni being a stile. The claims do not require the rail to be a certain direction, unlike applicant’s argument that rails must be horizontal and stiles are the vertical members. A rail can also be a vertical member or, when in combination with Taylor the rail of Digianni could be rotated in keeping with the sectional panel layout of Taylor such that the rail is horizontal. Examiner notes such bodily incorporation is not required. As the claims do not require a horizontal or vertical rail, only that the rails be on opposite sides of the louvers, which is clearly shown in Digianni, examiner maintains the combination reads over the claim.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the rejection of claims 6 and 13, as noted above it does not appear that applicant has properly traversed the Official Notice that belt drives were old and well known, the arguments directed to the motor connection were based on the primary Digianni. However, examiner has provided a supporting reference for belt drives, including connection to a motor, being known.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A KELLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/CATHERINE A KELLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights