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 01/08/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In figure 1, the plane upon which the sectional view of figure 2 is taken seems to be shown in line A-A. This objection is set forth because 37 CFR 1.84 (h)(3) states “The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view”, if A-A is showing figure 2, the broken line in figure 1 seems that it should be amended to --2-2-- or --II-II--.
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
Claims 13 and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line claim 13, “a first radius of curvature” (line 1) should read --the first radius of curvature-- and “a second radius of curvature” (line 2) should read --the second radius of curvature--. This issue is also present in claims 15-16.
Appropriate correction is required. Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above.
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 1-6, 8-17, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12221826. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the US Patent includes all features presented in claims 1-6, 8-17, and 20, for example, a first curved track portion and second curved track portion each comprising multiple radii of curvatures comprising non-simple open curves. Claims 1-6, 8-17, and 20 do recite an additional feature of forming the lower track and curved track portion by a single piece.
However, this additional feature is an obvious non-inventive feature as the courts have held that "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice". In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form both the lower track and curved track portion by a single piece, with a reasonable expectation of success, for manufacturing benefits such that less parts are built and for assembly improvements as there lesser parts to assemble.
Therefore, with the reasons presented above, the present claims are not patentably distinct from the US Patent.
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 1-6, 8-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalton et al. (US 20080202698) (hereinafter “Dalton”) in view of Lothar (WO 2004016892).
Claims 1 and 8
(Dalton discloses) A track of a vertically stacking door (figures 1-4), comprising:
a vertical track (5);
a first curved track portion (upper curved track leading to horizontal track 4; figure 3);
a second curved track portion (lower curved track leading to horizontal track 3), wherein the first curved track portion and the second curved track portion are split off from the vertical track (figure 3),
a first horizontal track portion (4), wherein a lower track of the first horizontal track portion (Annotated figure 3 below) and the first curved track portion are formed by a first single piece (figure 3); and
a second horizontal track portion (3) coupled to the second curved track portion (Annotated figure 3 below), wherein a lower track of the second horizontal track portion (Annotated figure 3 below) and the second curved track portion is formed by a second single piece (figure 3), wherein inside surfaces the first curved track portion, the second curved track portion, the first horizontal track portion, and the second horizontal track portion are free from connection points (figures 2-3) (claims 1 and 8).
Dalton fails to disclose:
(i) wherein the first curved track portion and the second curved track portion each comprises multiple radii of curvature, wherein the multiple radii of curvature comprise a non-simple open curve with two different curves comprising a first curved portion having a first radius of curvature and a second curved portion having a second radius of curvature that is different than the first radius of curvature; (claim 1);
(ii) wherein the first curved track portion and the second curved track portion each comprises a curvature having two different radii of curvature, wherein the two different radii of curvature comprise a non-simple open curve with two different curves comprising a first curved portion having a first radius of curvature and a second curved portion having a second radius of curvature that is different than the first radius of curvature; (claim 8).
(However, Lothar teaches)
(i) a curved track portion (10; Lothar figures 1-7) comprises multiple radii of curvature (Annotated figure 7 below), wherein the multiple radii of curvature comprise a non-simple open curve with two different curves (Annotated figure 7 below; note that applicant’s disclosure discloses ‘non-simple open curve’ as --two different curves or may have two different portions that have two different radii-- [par. 40]; this limitation was interpreted in a similar manner) comprising a first curved portion having a first radius of curvature (Annotated figure 7 below) and a second curved portion having a second radius of curvature that is different than the first radius of curvature (second curved portion also shown in Annotated figure 7 below) (claim 1).
(ii) a curved track portion (10; Lothar figures 1-7) comprises a curvature having two different radii of curvature (Annotated figure 7 below), wherein the two different radii of curvature comprise a non-simple open curve with two different curves (Annotated figure 7 below; note that applicant’s disclosure discloses ‘non-simple open curve’ as --two different curves or may have two different portions that have two different radii-- [par. 40]; this limitation was interpreted in a similar manner) comprising a first curved portion having a first radius of curvature (Annotated figure 7 below) and a second curved portion having a second radius of curvature that is different than the first radius of curvature (second curved portion also shown in Annotated figure 7 below) (claim 8).
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 curvatures of the first curved track portion and the second curved track portion of Dalton such that they each have multiple radii of curvatures similar to the teachings of Lothar, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing a smoother transition between the horizontal track portion and vertical track thus reduces noise and vibration, and improves the lifecycle of the stacking door assembly.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 3
PNG
media_image2.png
605
715
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 7
Claim 2
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 1 , wherein the first radius of curvature is greater than the second radius of curvature (Annotated figure 7 above; see disclosure below regarding the relation of a tight bend and gentle bend with the radii of curvature).
PNG
media_image3.png
206
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Source: https://www.khanacademy.org/math/multivariable-calculus/multivariable-derivatives/differentiating-vector-valued-functions/a/curvature
Claim 3
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 1, wherein the first radius of curvature is to minimize angular acceleration during a transition from vertical movement to horizontal movement of a panel (1) of the vertically stacking door (this is taught via the gentle bend of the modified first curved track portion in the combination above).
Claim 4
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 1.
Modified Dalton is silent regarding wherein the first radius of curvature is five to seven times greater than the second radius of curvature.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to optimize the curvatures of the radii of curvature such that the first radius of curvature is five to seven times greater than the second radius of curvature, with a reasonable expectation of success, for improved transition of the panels of the vertically stacking door.
Claims 5 and 15
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claims 1 and 8.
Modified Dalton is silent regarding wherein the first radius of curvature of the two different radii of curvature is between 10 to 15 inches.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to optimize the curvatures of the radii of curvature such that the first radius of curvature is between 10 to 15 inches, with a reasonable expectation of success, for improved transition of the panels of the vertically stacking door.
Claims 6 and 16
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claims 1 and 8.
Modified Dalton is silent regarding wherein the second radius of curvature of the two different radii of curvature is between 2 inches to 3 inches.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to optimize the curvatures of the radii of curvature such that the second radius of curvature is between 2 inches to 3 inches, with a reasonable expectation of success, for improved transition of the panels of the vertically stacking door.
Claim 9
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 8, wherein the first curved track portion and the second curved track portion are each formed as a single piece (figure 3) with a flange (7; note that ‘with’ was interpreted as --Next to; alongside of--) located along an outer perimeter outside of an inner track (outer perimeter of the respective inner tracks of the first and second curved track portions), wherein the flange has a plurality of openings (openings for 10 and 16; figure 4), each opening of the plurality of openings to receive a fastener (16 and the pivot fastener 10).
Claim 10
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 8, wherein the first single piece has a first flange (7) having a plurality of openings (openings for 10 and 16; figure 4), each opening of the plurality of openings to receive a fastener (16 and the pivot fastener 10).
Claim 11
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 8, wherein the second single piece has a second flange (7) having a plurality of openings (openings for 10 and 16; figure 4), each opening of the plurality of openings to receive a fastener (16 and the pivot fastener 10).
Claim 12
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 8, wherein the first curved track portion, the second curved track portion, the first horizontal track portion, and the second horizontal track portion are coupled to a bracket (9) via fasteners (Annotated figure 3 above) that are located outside of an inner track (Annotated figure 3 above).
Claim 13
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 8, wherein a first radius of curvature of the two different radii of curvature is greater than a second radius of curvature of the two different radii of curvature (Annotated figure 7 above; see disclosure above regarding the relation of a tight bend and gentle bend with the radii of curvature).
Claim 14
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 1 3, wherein the first radius of curvature is located closer to the vertical track than the second radius of curvature (this is taught via the modification above; see Annotated figure 7 above).
Claim 17
(Dalton discloses) A vertical door guide (figures 1-4) for a vertically stacking door (1 and 2), comprising:
a first vertical door guide (left side door guides 3-6; figure 1); and
a second vertical door guide (right side door guides 3-6), wherein the first vertical door guide and the second vertical door guide each comprise:
a vertical track (5);
a panel interface zone (the zone shown in the partial view of figure 3 including a partial vertical and horizontal tracks and the curved tracks) comprising a first curved track portion (upper curved track leading to horizontal track 4; figure 3) and a second curved track portion (lower curved track leading to horizontal track 3),
a first horizontal track portion (4), wherein a lower track of the first horizontal track portion (Annotated figure 3 above) and the first curved track portion are formed by a first single piece (figure 3); and
a second horizontal track portion (3), wherein a lower track of the second horizontal track portion (Annotated figure 3 above) and the second curved track portion is formed by a second single piece (figure 3).
Dalton fails to disclose wherein the first curved track portion and the second curved track portion each comprises a non-simple open curve with two different curves comprising a first curved portion having a first radius of curvature and a second curved portion having a second radius of curvature that is different from the first radius of curvature.
(However, Lothar teaches) a curved track portion (10; Lothar figures 1-7) comprises a non-simple open curve with two different curves (Annotated figure 7 above; note that applicant’s disclosure discloses ‘non-simple open curve’ as --two different curves or may have two different portions that have two different radii-- [par. 40]; this limitation was interpreted in a similar manner) comprising a first curved portion having a first radius of curvature (Annotated figure 7 above) and a second curved portion having a second radius of curvature that is different from the first radius of curvature (second curved portion also shown in Annotated figure 7 above).
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 curvatures of the first curved track portion and the second curved track portion of Dalton such that they each have multiple radii of curvatures similar to the teachings of Lothar, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing a smoother transition between the horizontal track portion and vertical track thus reduces noise and vibration, and improves the lifecycle of the stacking door assembly.
Claim 20
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The vertical door guide of claim 170.
Modified Dalton is silent regarding wherein the first radius of curvature is approximately 13 inches and the second radius of curvature is approximately 2 inches.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to optimize the curvatures of the radii of curvature such that the first radius of curvature is approximately 13 inches and the second radius of curvature is approximately 2 inches, with a reasonable expectation of success, for improved transition of the panels of the vertically stacking door.
Claims 7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalton in view of Lothar, as applied to claims 1-6, 8-17, and 20 above, in further view of Kwant (EP 3159467).
Claim 7
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 1, wherein the first single piece and the second single piece are each injection molded (this limitation was interpreted as product-by-process limitations; see MPEP 2113).
Modified Dalton is silent regarding to set the lower track of the first horizontal track portion and the lower track of the second horizontal track portion at an angle that is between 1 degree and 15 degrees.
(However, Kwant teaches) a bent profile (BG; Kwant figure 4) of a curved track portion (track portion in Kwant figure 4) at an angle that is between 1 degree and 15 degrees (Kwant figure 4).
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 angle of the curved track portions of modified Dalton such that the lower track of the first horizontal track portion and the lower track of the second horizontal track portion are set at an angle that is between 1 degree and 15 degrees as taught by Kwant, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing additional vertical space as such improving clearance underneath the horizontal track portions.
Claim 18
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The vertical door guide of claim 17, wherein the first single piece is injection molded (this limitation was interpreted as product-by-process limitations; see MPEP 2113).
Modified Dalton is silent regarding to set the lower track of the first horizontal track portion at an angle that is between 1 degree and 15 degrees.
(However, Kwant teaches) a bent profile (BG; Kwant figure 4) of a curved track portion (track portion in Kwant figure 4) at an angle that is between 1 degree and 15 degrees (Kwant figure 4).
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 angle of the curved track portions of modified Dalton such that the lower track of the first horizontal track portion and the lower track of the second horizontal track portion are set at an angle that is between 1 degree and 15 degrees as taught by Kwant, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing additional vertical space as such improving clearance underneath the horizontal track portions.
Claim 19
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The vertical door guide of claim 17, wherein the second single piece is injection molded (this limitation was interpreted as product-by-process limitations; see MPEP 2113).
Modified Dalton is silent regarding to set the lower track of the second horizontal track portion at an angle that is between 1 degree and 15 degrees.
(However, Kwant teaches) a bent profile (BG; Kwant figure 4) of a curved track portion (track portion in Kwant figure 4) at an angle that is between 1 degree and 15 degrees (Kwant figure 4).
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 angle of the curved track portions of modified Dalton such that the lower track of the first horizontal track portion and the lower track of the second horizontal track portion are set at an angle that is between 1 degree and 15 degrees as taught by Kwant, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing additional vertical space as such improving clearance underneath the horizontal track portions.
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