DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to the claims filed on February 6, 2026.
Note: the claims filed February 6, 2026 did not entirely follow proper claim amendment procedure. More specifically, claim 9 should be recited as “The panel door with a swing/link arm system of claim 7, where the stabilizer is a truss or a W-stabilizer[;] where the W-stabilizer is in the shape of the letter “H.” (Please see and compare the claims filed 6/19/2025 with the currently filed claims February 6, 2026.) In order to expedite prosecution and not mail out another Notice of non-complaint amendment, particularly due to the applicant’s age, the examiner has interpreted claim 9 with the following notation: “The panel door with a swing/link arm system of claim 7, where the stabilizer is a truss or a W-stabilizer[;] where the W-stabilizer is in the shape of the letter “H.”
However, proper claim amendment notation must be followed in the next filed claim set.
The amendment to the specification filed February 6, 2026 has been entered.
Status of claims: claims 1-11 are hereby examined below.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 9, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7 – “the foundation” should be amended to “a foundation”
Claim 1, line 3 – “comprises,” should be amended to “comprises”
Claims 2-9, line 1 – “a swing/link arm system” should be amended to “the swing/link arm system”
Claim 10, line 2 – “a panel door comprising: a panel door” should be amended to “the panel door comprising: the panel door”
Claim 10, line 3 – “comprises,” should be amended to “comprises”
Claim 10, line 9 – “the foundation” should be amended to “a foundation”
Claim 11, line 2 – “a panel door comprising: a panel door” should be amended to “the panel door comprising: the panel door”
Claim 11, line 3 – “comprises,” should be amended to “comprises”
Claim 11, line 10 – “the foundation” should be amended to “a foundation”
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The amendment filed June 19 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
[0026], line 3 – “offset” constitutes new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation is: “means to raise and lower the panel door” recited in claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 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, 2, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9273507 to Petrat.
Petrat discloses a panel door 20 with a swing/link arm system comprising: the panel door, a swing/link arm 126,24, a base coupling point 30, a column 120, and a means to raise and lower the panel door 12; where the swing/link arm further comprises, a bottom link arm slot 26b, a top arm link slot 126c, and a dog leg 24 and the top arm link slot is elongated; and
where the column is coupled to the panel door, and the base coupling point is coupled to the column; and the swing/link arm is coupled to the base coupling point, where the column is load bearing and transfers the load from the door to the foundation. (see FIGS. 7 and 8) (claim 1)
Petrat further discloses where the base coupling point further includes an upper connector 28 and lower connector 32, (claim 2) where the means to raise and lower the panel door comprises a linear actuator or a hydraulic cylinder, (see FIG. 7) (claim 5)
Petrat further discloses a panel door with a geometry that allows for easy raising and lowering of a panel door comprising:
a panel door 20, a swing/link arm 126,24, a base coupling point 30; and
where the swing/link arm further comprises a bottom link arm slot 26b, a top arm link slot 126c, and a dog leg 24 and wherein the top arm link slot is elongated; (see FIGS. 7 and 8) and
where the base coupling point comprises an upper connector 28 and a lower connector 32;
a column 120, and a means to raise and lower the panel door 12;
where the column is coupled to the panel door, the base coupling point is coupled to the column, and the swing/link arm is coupled to the base coupling point; and wherein the column is load bearing and transfers the load from the door to the foundation; where the means to raise and lower the door, comprises a linear actuator or a hydraulic cylinder. (see FIGS. 7 and 8) (claim 10)
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 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 3, 4, 6-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrat, as applied above, in view of US 8245446 to Betker.
Petrat fails to disclose a stabilizer.
Betker teaches of a panel door with a stabilizer 12, wherein the stabilizer is a truss or a W-stabilizer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the panel door disclosed in Petrat with the stabilizer truss taught in Betker with a reasonable expectation of success “to provide the desired support for” the panel door, “to prevent sagging in the open position” and “to support the door for loads such as can be presented by rain, snow and wind conditions.” (see col. 4 of Betker) (claims 3 and 4)
Petrat further discloses where the means to raise and lower the panel door comprises a linear actuator or a hydraulic cylinder, (see FIG. 7) (claim 6) and where the means to raise and lower the panel door comprises a linear actuator or a hydraulic cylinder. (see FIG. 7) (claim 7)
Petrat, as applied above, further discloses wherein the stabilizer is a truss or a W-stabilizer; wherein the W-stabilizer is in the shape of the letter “H.” (see truss 12 in Betker) (claim 8)
Petrat, as applied above, further discloses where the stabilizer is a truss or an H-Beam. (see truss 12 in Betker) (claim 9)
Petret discloses a panel door with a geometry that allows for easy raising and lowering of a panel door comprising: a panel door 20, a swing/link arm 126,24, a base coupling point 30; where the swing/link arm further comprise a bottom link arm slot 26b, a top arm link slot 126c, and a dog leg (the angled connection between elements 24 and 126) and top arm link slot is elongated; and (see FIGS. 7 and 8)
where the base coupling point comprises an upper connector 28 and a lower connector 32;
a column 120, and a means to raise and lower the panel door 12;
where the column is coupled to the panel door, the base coupling point is coupled to the column, and the swing/link arm is coupled to the base coupling point; and where the column is load bearing and transfers the load from the door to the foundation; where the means to raise and lower the panel door comprises a linear actuator or a hydraulic cylinder.
Petrat fails to disclose a stabilizer.
Betker teaches of a panel door with a stabilizer 12, where the stabilizer is a truss or an H-Beam.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the panel door disclosed in Petrat with the stabilizer truss taught in Betker with a reasonable expectation of success “to provide the desired support for” the panel door, “to prevent sagging in the open position” and “to support the door for loads such as can be presented by rain, snow and wind conditions.” (see col. 4 of Betker) (claim 11)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of the applicant’s response filed February 6, 2026, the applicant states that “Paragraph 0026 was amended to remove the new matter.” The new matter was not removed; thus the objection to paragraph [0026] of the specification remains.
On page 6 of the applicant’s response filed February 6, 2026, the applicant states:
PNG
media_image1.png
160
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Petrat may describe element 30 as a “link arm,” the examiner has interpreted elements 126 and 24 as reading on the swing/link arm. (see FIG. 7 of Petrat) And, as noted the rejection above, elements 126 and 24 of the swing/link arm include “a bottom link arm slot 26b, a top arm link slot 126c, and a dog leg 24”, as recited in claims 1, 10 and 11.
On page 7 of the applicant’s response filed February 6, 2026, the applicant states
PNG
media_image2.png
160
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Petrat column 120 bears a load of at least the base coupling point 30; thus reading on “wherein the column is load bearing.”
Second, like Petrat element 16 within column 120, the top of applicant’s “means to raise and lower the door panel” 102 is guided by column 105, as illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 4-6.
Third, the Petrat “means to raise and lower the panel door” 12 functions exactly like applicant’s “means to raise and lower the panel door” 102 in that the Petrat “means to raise and lower the panel door” supports and “transfers the load from the door to the foundation,” as recited in claims 1, 10 and 11. (see col. 2, lines 45-50 of Petrat below and paragraph [0024] of applicant’s specification below)
PNG
media_image3.png
76
414
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
122
646
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, since the Petrat “means to raise and lower the panel door” sits within the column 120 and ontop a base plate of column 120 (see FIG. 1 of Petrat), the Petrat column “is load bearing and transfers the load from the door to the foundation,” as recited in claims 1, 10 and 11.
Fourth, the examiner has interpreted the Petrat “means to raise and lower the panel door” to be part of the Petrat column since the Petrat “means to raise and lower the panel door” sits within the column 120 and ontop a base plate of column 120. Thus, the Petrat column “is load bearing and transfers the load from the door to the foundation,” for at least the reason that the Petrat “means to raise and lower the panel door” is part of the Petrat column. Put another way, the Petrat column “supports the door’s weight as it operates and is the mounting support for the linear actuator,” as described in applicant’s specification. (see paragraph [0029] below)
PNG
media_image5.png
162
636
media_image5.png
Greyscale
On page 7 of the applicant’s response filed February 6, 2026, the applicant states:
PNG
media_image6.png
284
664
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, it appears the applicant is contesting limitations not recited in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS MENEZES whose telephone number is (571)272-5225. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 7:30 -4 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Daniel Cahn can be reached on 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 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.
/Marcus Menezes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634