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 were received on 7/16/2026. These drawings are unacceptable. Each of previous figures 1-4 has been amended to include new matter in the form of at least vertical uprights 15 (previously the uprights of the counter frame 19 of the pedestrian door 4, now uprights supporting the movement of the panel door as a whole) and the addition of what appears to be an operator above the opening. Original figures 1-4 included no framing, guides, or operator mechanism for moving the panels. New figures 5 is purported to show the panels in the open position, however, there is insufficient support in the original disclosure for the open position as shown. Also original figures 2 and 3 showing intermediate positions appear to show a horizontal movement (i.e. inward toward the viewer) of the upper panel in addition to the vertical while open position figure 5 shows what appears to be only vertical movement. The majority of the description of the open position is in the background section and devoted to other prior art configurations, not applicant’s. The detailed description includes no description of the stacked configuration in new figure 5.
As all the figures contain new matter the replacement figures are not being entered and the previous objections remain below.
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 supporting structure and opening position with the panels arranged substantially horizontally of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). See also below specification objection and 112 rejections. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because:
The arrows for locking means 7 and automatic movement means 8 in upper figure 1 (not expanded lower view) appear to point to the same structure, i.e. the automatic movement means, as both arrows point from the right to the left and indicate the right side of the mechanism where the movement assembly 23 is located. As the locking means is better indicated from the left as in the expanded lower view examiner suggests the arrow and reference numeral 7 for the locking means be removed from upper figure 1. Examiner notes this issue was resolved in the replacement drawings, however, as noted above the replacement drawings are unacceptable and not entered.
A similar issue occurs in upper figures 2 and 3.
The lead lines for contact edges 9 in upper figure 2 (not lower expanded view) point to the same contact edge, i.e. the edge of lower panel 3. Either the lead lines should be adjusted to be more similar to those in upper figure 3 than those in upper figure 1 (i.e. pointing in opposing directions) or the lead lines and reference numeral may be removed as the contact edges are clearly indicated in lower expanded figure 2. Examiner notes this issue was resolved in the replacement drawings, however, as noted above the replacement drawings are unacceptable and not entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 27, 29a, 29b, 32a, and 32b in figure 4. Examiner notes this issue was resolved in the replacement drawings, however, as noted above the replacement drawings are unacceptable and not 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.
Specification
The amendment filed 7/16/2026 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: The different inclinations of the panels and the description and showing of the opening position in figure 5 as in the amendments to the specification were not supported by the original disclosure. Also the subject matter of claim 1 amended to clarify the horizontal position is new matter as details below.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the disclosure page 2 lines 2-15 describes the door having the problem the invention is solving as a sectional door with separate non-hinged segments that perform different movements when switching from opening and closing positions and distinct from the hinged connected section doors as in background art IT 1420181 (on IDS of 2/7/2025). This is supported by figures 2 and 3 showing the panels at intermediate positions that are inclined and not connected to each other. However, the panels are described on page 3 lines 18-19 and claim 1 as being horizontal in the opening position. Since applicant never shows the open position, or even the first panel 3a moving, it is unclear what is meant by horizontally.
The hinged sectional panels of typical sectional doors such as IT 1420181 are described almost identically as “arranged horizontally to clear the opening” (claim 1 and page 3 use term entrance instead of opening and modify horizontally with substantially) in the opening position on page 1 lines 20-21, i.e. the panels form a horizontal plane in the opening position, perpendicular to the vertical plane in the closing position. As applicant’s door is described as not being hinged and the panels moving differently is does not appear that forming a horizontal plane is what is meant as the panels would not then move differently (i.e. the lower panel guided by the typical L-shaped up-and-over supporting structure would make the same movements as the upper panel when opening, just later in time).
Applicant’s door could be some sort of stacked door. Such stacked doors typically move the panels vertically and stack the vertical panels horizontally (i.e. the panels are vertical but placed horizontally one next to another) as shown in prior art US patent 8468751 to Williams (hereinafter Williams) so the horizontal arrangement could be the horizontally stacked vertical panels of Williams. However, such stacked doors typically move the panels vertically to start and only stack above the opening, unlike the angled movement shown in applicant’s figures 2-3. Stacked doors with a more angled movement are also known as shown in US patent 7681620 to Padan (hereinafter Padan), however, as shown in figures 1B-1C of Padan those doors do not move inwardly as in applicant’s figures 2 and 3 but instead pivot on the vertical supporting structure and then move vertically to stack.
The problem could be an issue with the description of the panels performing different movements when switching between opening and closing position on page 3. Sectional door panels, whether hingedly connected as in the background art or separate as in Williams and Padan, typically follow the same movement path. For example, if applicant’s supporting structure is an L-shaped up-and over track then the upper panel 3b could achieve angled positions similar to those in figures 2 and 3 (while figure 3 does show the bottom edge of the panel moving away from the wall the vertical portion of the track could be at a slight angle of fully vertical and achieve such a movement), however, the lower panel will then perform the exact same movement. This scenario does seem to be what is shown in new figure 5 since the figures are stacked and it would appear for lower panel 3b to achieve the position of figure 5 it would follow the same movement path as upper panel 3a.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: locking means in claims 1 and 3 and automatic movement means in claims 1 and 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As noted with the above specification and drawing objections, there is no support in the original disclosure for the stacked horizontal open position shown in new figure 5 and described in claim 1 as “said panels extend substantially in respective horizontal planes”. Examiner notes that while the support structure is described in the original disclosure as being known on page 2 and not shown but known and not described in detail in page 3 the only prior art references provided were for the up and over panels doors with L-shaped track. As such, with the minimal disclosure of the support system, no description of the movement or opening position (stacked or something similar), and no references supporting the newly described and shown stacked opening position, the newly described position is new matter as it was not clear from the original disclosure that such a stacked position was what was meant or what applicant was in possession of at the time of filing.
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.
Claims 1-9 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 lines 9-10 recite “said panels extend substantially in respective horizontal planes”. As detail above in the specification objections and 112(a) rejections, it is unclear what is meant by horizontally or what the overall movement of the door is from the closure position to the open position (i.e. only partially opened positions shown with no supporting structure shown to show movement path) from the original disclosure and the present amendments with respective horizontal planes are new matter. Limitation will be interpreted broadly as in open position panels are in some horizontal configuration (stacked, horizontal plane, etc.).
Dependent claims rejected as depending from a rejected claim
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US patent 7201206 to Griebel (hereinafter Griebel).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, the sectional door with walkway is shown in Griebel in the embodiment of figures 5-9 (with generic features from figure 1-4) with
a supporting structure (figures 5-7 structure engaging rollers 22) positionable at an entrance to a room;
a main door comprising at least one plurality of panels (1) constrained to said supporting structure in a movable manner between:
a closure position (figure 1), wherein said panels (1) are arranged one panel on top of another panel in a substantially vertical position to close said entrance, and
an opening position (figure 2 partially open), wherein said panels (1) are arranged substantially horizontally to clear said entrance;
a pedestrian door, defined by at least one openable portion (4) of each of said panels (1), said openable portion (4) being hinged (figure 6) to a base portion (rest of panel 1 besides portion 4) of said respective panel (1) in a movable manner between an open position (figure 6) and a closed position (figure 5);
locking means (9), positioned between said base portion and said openable portion (4) of each of said panels (1), said locking means (9) being movable between a locking configuration (further taught column 4 lines 18-21 and column 7 lines 1-2, 61-64) and a release configuration (figure 6, further taught column 4 lines 15-18 and column 6 lines 61-67); and
automatic movement means (13,14,15), operatively connected to said locking means (9) and configured to automatically move said locking means (9) in said release configuration, when said main door is in the closure position (further taught column 6 lines 61-67), and in said locking configuration, when said main door is not in the closure position (further taught column 4 lines 18-21 and column 7 lines 1-2, 61-64).
Regarding claim 2, plurality of panels (1) comprises at least a first (lowest panel figure 5) and a second panel second lower panel figure 5) which, in said closure position (figure 5), are arranged adjacent to each other at a respective contact edge (edge between panels, show for opening portion 4 on either side of axis 5 in figure 3), said contact edges moving close to (upper horizontal segment and lower vertical segment in figure 2) and away from (angled corner segment figure 2) each other during the switch of said main door from said opening position to said closure position and from said closure position to said opening position (figure 2 is partially open configuration so will occur during both opening and closing of door) in Griebel.
Regarding claim 4, said locking means (9) comprise at least one locking element (9), connected said base portion of at least one of said panels (1), said locking element (9) being movable along a direction of locking (horizontal direction figures 5 and 6) between:
said locking configuration, wherein said locking element (9) is moved close to (dashed lines figure 8) the other/said openable portion (4) to constrain said base portion to said openable portion, and
said release configuration, wherein said locking element (9) is moved away from (solid lines figure 8) the other /said openable portion (4) to release said base portion to said openable portion (4) in Griebel.
Regarding claim 5, said automatic movement means (13,14,15) comprise at least one movement assembly (13,14,15) associated with at least one of said panels (1), said movement assembly (13,14,15) comprising:
at least one activation element (13), connected to at least one of said panels (lowest panel 1 in figure 5) in a movable manner along a direction of activation (vertical direction figure 5);
at least one motion transmission system (14,15), positioned between said activation element (13) and said locking element (9) and configured to transform the motion (further taught column 6 line61-column 7 line 2) of said activation element (13) along said direction of activation (vertical figure 5) into a motion of said locking element (9) along said direction of locking (horizontal figure 5) in Griebel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to as being depending on a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action with respect to claim 1. Claims 7-9 are objected to as depending from an objected to claim and as such have not been separately examined for patentability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s arguments to the drawings, as detailed above the replacement drawings are unacceptable and not entered due to new matter. As such the original drawings objections all remain.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the specification objections, examiner notes as with the drawings the amendments to clarify the specification all include new matter as detailed above.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the claim objections, examiner notes the issues have been resolved by amendment and the claim objections have been removed.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the 112(b) rejections, as above examiner notes the amendments to resolve the previous 112(b) issues with respect to claim 1 have added new matter and thus raised new 1129B) issues as well.. The previous 112(b) issues with respect to claim 2 have been resolved by amendment.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the 102 rejection of claim 1, examiner disagrees with applicant’s arguments that Griebel fails to teach the invention as described in claim 1. While applicant argues Griebel does not specifically state that each panel of the main gate includes a openable portion of the pedestrian door but instead teaches a door leaf inserted into the door, examiner maintains applicant’s interpretation of each panel defining a portion of the pedestrian door is unnecessarily narrow and appears to be premised on Griebel not using the same language as applicant. Griebel shows a main door made up of at least one plurality of panels (plurality of panels 1 with pedestrian door) and each of the plurality includes an openable portion (4) defining part of the pedestrian door. While applicant argues Griebel fails to teach each panel having a locking means connected to an automatic opening means, examiner disagrees and notes that while Griebel only shows one automatically moved lock on the lower end the disclosure includes a clear plurality of locks for the other panels.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A KELLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/CATHERINE A KELLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
