DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 11/25/2024.
Claims 1-30 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 7 is disclosed as a sectional side view of figure 6, but the section line where figure 7 was taken is not shown. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
Figure 4 is objected because both the moving pulley 41 and spring 41 share the same drawing number.
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 following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 7 - “a controller”.
Claim 17 - “an arcuate groove”.
Claim 25 - “a plurality of guide members at a top of the door leaf for receipt by the curved top guide tracks”.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 36 of page 11 discloses the moving pulley as 41 and line 8 of page 12 discloses the spring as also 41. This issue reoccurs on different paragraphs of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required. Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above.
Claim Interpretation
In lines 2-3 of claim 15, “respective framing members” were interpreted to be referring to the ‘respective member’ in claim 14. If this interpretation is correct, applicant is recommended to amend claim 14 to recite --a respective framing member--.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 11 of claim 1, “the door” should read -- the door leaf--.
In line 1 of claims 2-30, “A tilting door assembly” should read --The tilting door assembly --.
In lines 1-2 of claim 8, “wherein the counterweight has a mass that is at least 80kg greater than a mass of the door leaf” should read --wherein the mass of the counterweight the mass of the door leaf--. This issue is also present in claims 9-11.
In line 2 of claim 10, “the door leaf(s)” should read -- the door leaf --. Note that claim 1 only introduces one door leaf. Applicant can use “the door leaf(s)”, but another door leaf is needed to be introduced first. This issue is also present in claim 11.
In line 2 of claim 22, “from the door cable sheaves” should be amended. Note that claims 21-22 do not recite any door cable sheaves.
In line 2 of claim 22, “the first sheave” should read -- the first fixed sheave --. This issue is also present in claim 23 as well as for the recitation “the second sheave” in claim 23, and in claim 24.
Appropriate correction is required. Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above.
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, 7-12, 18-24, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulomb (FR 2481123) in view of Du (CN 1376849).
Claim 1
(Coulomb discloses) A tilting door assembly (figures 1-4) comprising:
a door frame (2-4);
a door leaf (1) arranged to move from a substantially vertical closed position to a substantially horizontal open position (figure 1), the leaf having a horizontal tilt axis (at 1a and at 1b);
a plurality of guide tracks (grooves formed in 2 and 3) fixed relative to the frame, configured to guide movement of the door leaf between the open and closed positions (figure 1);
a counterweight (7);
a sheave and cable system (5 and 6) arranged between the door leaf and the counterweight;
a winch (44) coupled to the counterweight via a winch cable (42) and operable to open and close the door (Excerpt 1 from page 4 below), whereby raising the counterweight moves the door towards the closed position, and lowering the counterweight moves the door towards the open position (Excerpt 2 from page 3 below; also see counterweight 7 raised while the door is beginning its opening movement in figure 1).
Coulomb is silent regarding wherein the counterweight has a mass that is greater than a mass of the door leaf.
(However, Du teaches) a counterweight (40; Du figure 1) has a mass that is greater than a mass of a door leaf (7; Excerpt 3 from page 13 below).
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 counterweight of Coulomb such that it is heavier than the door leaf as taught by Du, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the predictable and expected benefits of making the manual opening/closing of the door leaf easier with the aid of the heavier counterweight.
PNG
media_image1.png
123
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 1
PNG
media_image2.png
196
742
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 2
PNG
media_image3.png
123
743
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 3
Claim 7
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Coulomb is silent regarding further comprising a controller, configured to stop or reverse movement of the winch when tensile forces exceed a predetermined value.
(However, Du teaches) a controller (remote control; Excerpt 4 from page 5 below), configured to stop or reverse movement of a pulley (46) when tensile forces exceed a predetermined value (intended use; the remote control can be used to stop movement of a pulley when there is cable slack).
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 assembly of modified Coulomb with the controller of Du, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide additional methods of controlling the system. Additionally, the controller provides convenience benefits to prevent further damage to the winch and winch cable in case of cable slack or door obstruction.
PNG
media_image4.png
194
747
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 4
Claims 8-11
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Coulomb is silent regarding:
(i) wherein the counterweight has a mass that is at least 80kg greater than a mass of the door leaf. (claim 8).
(ii) wherein the counterweight has a mass that is at about 100kg greater than a mass of the door leaf. (claim 9).
(iii) wherein the counterweight has a mass that is at least about 110% of a total mass of the door leaf(s). (claim 10).
(iv) wherein the counterweight has a mass that is between about 110% and about 125% of a total mass of the door leaf(s). (claim 11).
However, examiner is directing the attention to the fact that the courts have held that (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the counterweight of modified Coulomb such that it has a mass at about 100kg greater than a mass of the door leaf (claims 8-9) and a mass that is between about 110% and about 125% of a total mass of the door leaf (claims 10-11), with a reasonable expectation of success, for significantly making the manual opening/closing of the door leaf easier with the aid of the much heavier counterweight.
Claim 12
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sheave and cable system comprises a plurality of door cables (5 and 45), each door cable having a first end (ends at left and right 1a and the end of cable 45 attached to the door leaf; figure 1) fixed to the door leaf at a respective cable connection point (connection points at 1a and the one at the first end of cable 45).
Claim 18
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 12, comprising a plurality of door cable sheaves (plurality of sheaves 6), each configured to receive one or more door cables (5).
Claim 19
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 18, wherein each door cable sheave is positioned directly above the respective cable connection point (figure 1).
Claim 20
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 19, wherein the door cable sheaves are positioned on or slightly above a top member (3-4) of the door frame (figure 1).
Claim 21
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 12, comprising a first fixed sheave (Annotated figure 1 below), positioned generally above the counterweight, to route the door cables down to the counterweight (Annotated figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
766
1243
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1
Claim 22
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 21, comprising a second fixed sheave (Annotated figure 1 above) to route cables from the door cable sheaves to the first sheave.
Claim 23
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 22, wherein the door cable sheaves, the first sheave, and the second sheave are all mounted at substantially the same height relative to the door frame (Annotated figure 1 above).
Claim 24
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 22, wherein the door cable sheaves are rotatable about a first axis of rotation, the first sheave is rotatable about a second axis of rotation, and the second sheave is rotatable about a third axis of rotation (all three axes of rotations shown in Annotated figure 1 above); wherein the first, second, and third axes of rotation are mutually perpendicular (Annotated figure 1 above).
Claim 26
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the guide tracks include two vertical side guide tracks (tracks at 2) at opposite sides of the door frame, and wherein the door leaf comprises two respective side guide members (left and right 1a) for receipt by the side guide tracks (figure 1).
Claim 27
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 26, wherein the door leaf side guide members are co-axial and positioned on the tilt axis (figure 1), and wherein the door leaf side guide members are rotatable about the tilt axis within the side guide tracks and vertically slidable (figure 1).
Claim 28
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 1, comprising a mullion (8) pivotally attached to the door leaf at the tilt axis (at 1b), the mullion being movable between an extended position (mullion position when the door leaf is closed) and a retracted position (mullion position when the door leaf is opened).
Claim 29
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 28, comprising two or more doors (Annotated figure 1 above) arranged side-by-side, each door having at least one edge (respective edge near the respective movable mullion) pivotally attached at its tilt axis to a respective movable mullion (each doors are pivotally attached at the tilt axis at 1a and towards the respective movable mullion).
Claim 30
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein in the open position at least a portion of the door leaf protrudes forward of the door frame (figure 1; parts of the door leaf protrudes forward of the frame 3).
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulomb in view of Du, as applied to claims 1, 7-12, 18-24, and 26-30 above, in further view of Hübner (US 20200199931).
Claim 2
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Coulomb fails to disclose further comprising a load sensor, wherein the load sensor is coupled to the winch cable and configured to sense tensile forces in the winch cable.
(However, Hübner teaches) a load sensor (19; Hübner figures 7a-7c), wherein the load sensor is coupled to a winch cable (12) and configured to sense tensile forces in the winch cable (par. 44).
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 assembly of modified Coulomb with the load sensor of Hübner, with a reasonable expectation of success, to consistently check the tension in the cables which reduces the chances of cable slack and assembly failure as such maintaining proper operation of the assembly.
Claim 3
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 2, wherein the winch cable extends from the winch to the load sensor via the counterweight (this is taught via the combination above), the counterweight comprising a moving pulley (one of two pulleys above the counterweight 7).
Claim 4
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 2, wherein the load sensor and the winch are positioned above the counterweight (this is taught once the weight is lowered to its lowest position and when the door leaf is in the fully opened position; also note that the claim does not require that the load sensor and the winch to be both above the entirety of the counterweight as such even if a portion of the counterweight is below both the load sensor and the winch, the modified assembly meets this limitation).
Claim 5
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 2, wherein the load sensor comprises a spring (par. 18 of Hübner) and is configured to measure the spring force (par. 18 of Hübner) and/or displacement of the spring (this was interpreted as an ‘or’ clause therefore only one of the two options is required to be taught by the prior art).
Claim 6
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 5, wherein the spring is a compression spring (this is taught via the combination above).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulomb in view of Du, as applied to claims 1, 7-12, 18-24, and 26-30 above, in further view of Jackson et al. (US 2320604) (hereinafter “Jackson”).
Claims 13-17
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 12.
Modified Coulomb fails to disclose:
(i) wherein each door cable passes through an aperture in the door leaf. (claim 13).
(ii) wherein the door leaf comprises a support frame, each door cable first end being coupled to a respective member of the support frame. (claim 14).
(iii) comprising a plurality of door cable routing brackets mounted to respective framing members, to facilitate the connection of the door cables to the respective framing members through a range of relative door cable angles. (claim 15).
(iv) wherein each door cable routing bracket comprises a routing portion to receive the respective door cable, the routing portion at least partly protruding through the door leaf. (claim 16).
(v) wherein the routing portion comprises an arcuate groove to receive the respective door cable and to allow the cable to bend through about 90 degrees along the routing portion. (claim 17).
However, Jackson teaches:
(i) wherein each door cable (35) passes through an aperture (Annotated figure 4 below) in a door leaf (7-8);
(ii) wherein the door leaf comprises a support frame (Annotated figure 4 below), each door cable first end being coupled to a respective member (43) of the support frame (Annotated figure 4 below);
(iii) comprising a plurality of door cable routing brackets (42) mounted to respective framing members, to facilitate the connection of the door cables to the respective framing members through a range of relative door cable angles (Annotated figure 4 below);
(iv) wherein each door cable routing bracket comprises a routing portion (60) to receive the respective door cable (Jackson figure 4), the routing portion at least partly protruding through the door leaf (Jackson figure 4);
(v) wherein the routing portion comprises an arcuate groove (Annotated figure 4 below) to receive the respective door cable and to allow the cable to bend through about 90 degrees along the routing portion (the arcuate groove allows rotation of the door cables when the door leaf is opening/closing).
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 door leaf of modified Coulomb with the door cable mounting member of Jackson, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the predictable and expected benefits of properly securing the cables to the door leaf.
PNG
media_image6.png
402
902
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 4
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulomb in view of Du, as applied to claims 1, 7-12, 18-24, and 26-30 above, in further view of Edwards Jr. (US 4765093).
Claim 25
(Coulomb, as modified above, discloses) The tilting door assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Coulomb fails to disclose wherein the guide tracks include a plurality of curved top guide tracks positioned at or above a top of the door frame, and wherein the door leaf comprises a plurality of guide members at a top of the door leaf for receipt by the curved top guide tracks.
(However, Edwards Jr. teaches) wherein guide tracks (40 and 41; Edwards Jr. figures 1-4) include a plurality of curved top guide tracks (40b) positioned at or above a top of a door frame (the wall frame to which 34 is mounted), and wherein a door leaf (10) comprises a plurality of guide members (43) at a top of the door leaf for receipt by the curved top guide tracks (Edwards Jr. figures 3-4).
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 assembly of modified Coulomb with the curved top guide tracks of Edwards Jr., with a reasonable expectation of success, for smoothly guiding the door leaf as it transitions between the opened and closed positions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B PONCIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-4:00.
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.
/PATRICK B. PONCIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634