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 office action in response to the amendment filed 6/23/2026.
Claims 6-7, 10, 16-17 and 20 are amended, and claims 21-22 added.
Claims 1-22 are pending and examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 6, line 2, “respective”(first occurrences) should be “the respective” and in line 4, “a frame” should be “the frame”; and in claim 7, line 2, “the each” should be “each”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 § 102
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 1-3, 5-6, 11-13, 15-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Selzer(9,422,715; previously cited).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Selzer discloses an actuator system/method for a patio cover and assembly(see Figs. 2A-C and 6), the patio cover comprising a frame(160), the actuator system comprising:
a motor(310, see Fig. 6); and
a linking assembly(250, see Figs. 2A-2C) coupled to the motor(via 350 and 316. see Fig. 2C) and configured to rotate cover panels of the patio cover between an open configuration and a closed configuration(see Figs. 2A-2C),
wherein the motor is pivotally coupled to the frame to allow the motor to pivot toward the frame when the cover panels(110) rotate to the closed configuration(see Fig. 2A), and pivot away from the frame when the cover panels rotate to the open configuration(see Fig. 2C, the angle of the actuator is different in Figs. 2A and 2C and considered the pivoting of the motor from the frame and away from the frame meeting the claim limitation; the disclosure may not explicitly disclose pivoting of the motor, the Figs. are considered to show this pivoting and to meet the claimed limitation).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Selzer disclosed the actuator system of claims 1 and 11, wherein the motor is rotationally coupled to the linking assembly by a bracket(312, see Fig. 6), the bracket comprising one or more of a bolt(see column 4, line 22), a flat washer, a lock nut, and/or a spacer.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Selzer discloses the actuator system of claims 2 and 12, wherein the linking assembly comprises:
a piston(316) coupled to the motor(310, see Fig. 6);
an arm(350) coupled to the piston and configured to extend toward the patio cover panels(see Figs. 2B and 2C), the arm being rotationally coupled to the piston to provide the rotational coupling between the motor and the linking assembly(see Figs. 2A-2C); and a linking member(250) coupled to the arm(350, see Figs. 2B and 2C) and the cover panels(110), the linking member configured to rotate the cover panels in unison when driven by the arm, the piston, and/or the motor, between the open configuration and the closed configuration(see Figs. 2A-2C), wherein the linking member, the piston, and the arm are configured to pivot with the motor toward the frame when the cover panels rotate to the closed configuration(see Fig. 2A), and pivot away from the frame when the cover panels rotate to the open configuration(see Fig. 2C).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Selzer discloses the actuator system of claims 3 and 13, wherein the linking member(250) is rotatably coupled to a plurality of individual link pins(242, see column 4, lines 14-15 and Figs. 4-5) that extend from different ones of the cover panels, the linking member configured to rotate the cover panels between the open configuration and the closed configuration via the link pins(see Figs. 2A-2c).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Selzer discloses the actuator system of claims 5 and 15, wherein the link pins(242) extend from one side of respective cover panels(110) at ends of the respective cover panels such that at least a portion of the linking member and/or the arm moves between a first position and a second position relative to a frame of the patio cover when the cover panels rotate between the open configuration and the closed configuration, the first position being higher than the second position along a vertical axis relative to the frame(the link pin is higher when the panel are open and lower when the panels are closed meeting the claim limitation, see Figs. 2A-2C and 4-5).
Regarding claim 21, Selzer discloses the actuator system of claim 1, wherein the motor(310) is pivotally coupled to the frame(160) by a motor base bracket fixed relative to the frame(see Fig. 6), and wherein the motor pivots relative to the motor base bracket as the cover panels rotate between the open configuration and the closed configuration(see Figs. 2A-2C).
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 4, 10, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selzer.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Selzer disclosed the actuator system of claim 3, wherein the linking member is longer than the arm along a first axis(see Figs. 2B and 2C), and the arm is longer than the linking member along a second, substantially perpendicular axis(see Fig. 2C) but lacks the linking member has a longer first end located toward the motor along the first axis relative to a shorter second, opposite, end of the linking member.
The spacing of the linking member with respect to the frame is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan, such as differing linking member lengths depending on at what location the linking arms is couped to the panels, given the intended use of the assembly and design requirements thereof
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Selzer discloses the actuator system of claim 1, wherein the motor(310) is pivotally coupled to the frame via a motor base bracket(312, see Fig. 6), the motor base bracket coupled to a top surface of the frame(160) toward one end of the frame via one or more connections(see Fig. 6), wherein the motor is coupled to the motor base bracket by a pivot connection(interaction of motor around bolt), the pivot connection including a bolt(313) extending along a pivot, such that the motor is configured to rotate around the pivot axis relative to the motor base bracket.
Selzer lacks the specific attachment of the bracket to the top surface of the frame and lock nut with the bolt.
Applicant's disclosure lends no criticality to the specific attachments(see paras. [0064] and [0076]).
Therefore, the specific connection between the bracket and frame is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the assembly and design requirements thereof.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13-19 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,098,553. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both show an actuator with motor and linking assembly as discussed in detail in the prior office action not repeated here for brevity, as well as the rotation pins of new claim 22(see claim 1).
Claims 2, 10, 12 and 20-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,098,553 in view of Selzer.
'553 discloses the actuator system and method of claims 1 and 11, but lacks the specific bracket.
Selzer discloses the bracket 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 system/method of '553 with coupling brackets such as disclosed by Selzer, given a reasonable degree of success, in order to rotatably couple the motor to the frame and linking members given the intended use of the system and design requirements thereof.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previous drawing objection and 112, 102 and 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner initially interpreted the motor of the Torman reference as pivoting with respect to the frame but is persuaded by applicant’s arguments that the motor of Torman does not pivot.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the double patenting rejection are not persuasive and are maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH A. AUBREY(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. AUBREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Aubrey/
Prosecution Insights