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 .
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 ‘a flange attached to each wall”, “hinge” 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 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is unclear what the applicant intends in the recitation of ”impenetrable stainless steel” as nothing is impenetrable as evidenced by the necessity to form and cut materials of which the invention is made. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “characterized in that” serves to confuse rather than clarify that the applicant requires.
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.
Claim 1 (claims 2-12 by dependency) is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “safety device”. There is no antecedent basis for the independent claim. A claim listing should begin with “A safety device” and each subsequent occurrence clear that there is only one invention per application as required 35 USC
Claim 1 recites the limitation "walls" in line 2, "the edge" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear how “a flange attached to the top of each wall”. As best understood there are three walls but two flanges. It is unclear what the applicant requires concerning walls and flanges each wall.
Regarding claim 9, “ a hinge” is claimed, however no structure of a hinge is shown or claimed by the applicant. It is unclear what the applicant requires to satisfy the recitation of hinge without some structure that accomplishes a hinge. For purposes of examination the recitation will be broadly interpreted until otherwise clarified by the applicant.
Regarding claim 12, "can be" is indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the invention or whether it refers to a system capability that is a mere possibility that is not required.
In view of the rejections above under 35 USC § 112, the claims referred to in any and all rejections below are rejected as best understood.
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 1-3, 7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Womacks (US 8,403,022) in view of Singleton (US 2014/0182795).
Regarding claim 1, Womacks discloses safety device for garage doors of the type comprising a housing (300) with a base and walls (304,308) to protect an emergency trigger from an opening mechanism, where the base of the housing includes an opening, characterized by also comprising at least: a flange attached to the top edge of each wall, where the joint is flexible allowing the flange to rotate around the joint and adjust its opening with respect to the housing.
Womacks does not disclose: a magnetic element attached to each flange.
Singleton teaches and a magnetic element attached to each flange for the purpose of using permanent magnets and/or hook and loop strips are used to removably affix the cover.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Womacks with a magnetic element attached to a flange as taught by Singleton for the expected benefit of using permanent magnets and/or hook and loop strips are used to removably affix the cover.
Regarding claim 2, Womacks as modified by Singleton discloses safety device for garage doors according to claim 1, characterized in that its shape is a hollow parallelepiped with two side walls (310,314; Womacks) joined by means of the base (306; Womacks) and a front wall (308; Womacks), where each side wall has a flange (326; Womacks) with a magnetic element (18; Singleton).
Regarding claim 3, Womacks as modified by Singleton discloses safety device for garage doors according to claim 1, characterized in that the flexible connection between each flange and each wall is a longitudinal joint (Fig.3B; Womacks).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Womacks, Singleton, and Shepard discloses Safety device for garage doors according to claim 1, characterized in that the flanges (326, 3A and 3B; Womacks) include protruding extensions at perpendicular angles that form claw-shaped edges (Fig. 3A; Womacks).
Regarding claim 10, Womacks as modified by Singleton discloses safety device for garage doors according to claim 1, characterized in that the magnetic element (18; Singleton) of each flange is located on the flange.
Womacks as modified by Singleton discloses the claimed invention except for the magnetic element of each flange is located in the center of each flange.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify the magnetic element of each flange is located in the center of each flange, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Womacks as modified by Singleton safety device for garage doors according to claim 1, characterized by a plurality of magnetic elements (18; Singleton) being distributed along each flange (Fig.4 and 5; Singleton).
Regarding claim 12, Womacks as modified by Singleton safety device for garage doors according to claim 1, characterized in that the position of each magnetic element is adjustable and can be slid to change position (Abstract, removable fixed).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Womacks (US 8,403,022) in view of Singleton (US 2014/0182795) further inview of Mello, II (US 2017/0096852).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Womacks, Singleton and Mello II discloses safety device for garage doors according to claim 1, characterized in that the housing.
Womacks as modified by Singleton does not disclose: of rigid and impenetrable stainless steel.
Mello II teaches stainless steel for the purpose of providing a material readily be formed into shaped objects provided that the components selected are consistent with the intended operation of a garage door security plate assembly.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Womacks as modified by Singleton with stainless steel as taught by Mello II for the expected benefit of providing a material readily be formed into shaped objects provided that the components selected are consistent with the intended operation of a garage door security plate assembly.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Womacks, Singleton and Mello II discloses safety device for garage doors according to claim 1, characterized in that the housing is made of flexible plastic.
Womacks as modified by Singleton does not disclose: flexible plastic.
Mello II teaches flexible plastic for the purpose of providing a material readily be formed into shaped objects provided that the components selected are consistent with the intended operation of a garage door security plate assembly.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Womacks as modified by Singleton with flexible plastic as taught by Mello II for the expected benefit of providing a material readily be formed into shaped objects provided that the components selected are consistent with the intended operation of a garage door security plate assembly.
Claims 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Womacks (US 8,403,022) in view of Singleton (US 2014/0182795) further inview of Shepard (US 2012/0043030).
Regarding claim 6, Womacks as modified by Singleton discloses safety device for garage doors according to claim 1, characterized in that the housing has a shape with a base and walls.
Womacks as modified by Singleton does not disclose: a rounded shape with a base and rounded walls convex outwards.
Shepard teaches: a rounded shape with a base and rounded walls convex outwards for the purpose of providing a secure nestingly fitted to house door opening structure.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Womacks as modified by Singleton with a rounded shape with a base and rounded walls convex outwards as taught by Shepard for the expected benefit of a rounded shape with a base and rounded walls convex outwards for the purpose of providing a secure nestingly fitted to house door opening structure.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Womacks, Singleton, and Shepard safety device for garage doors according to claim 1, characterized in that the joints between each flange and each wall are elastic joints that allow each flange to be opened beyond the design opening (Fig. 3C before install Fig. 4 A installed) and returned to the original opening (Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Womacks, Singleton, and Shepard safety device for garage doors according to claim 1, characterized in that the joints (326, 310, 308) between each flange and each wall are made by means of a hinge (structure capable of moment and returning as the transition between walls of the housing shown by Womacks).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as it may affect the patentability of applicant’s claimed invention is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas L. Neubauer whose telephone number is 571.272.4864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. Fulton can be reached on 571-272-7376. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T. L. N./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675