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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/13/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 5/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because the restriction was made under 371 lack of unity grounds, not US practice, and as such the burden requirement for US practice does not apply. As applicant has not shown that the inventions share a special technical feature as required for unity of invention the restriction is deemed proper. Examiner also notes that while applicant asserts that at least claim 1 is generic, generic claims apply to elections of species (i.e. a claim may be generic or species specific) not restrictions as in the present case.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The disclosure refers to the ends of the crossbeam and uprights as “stretches”. This appears to be a translational issue as the term “stretch” means “continuous expanse” and the ends of beams would not generally be considered to be continuous expanses. Examiner suggests “region” (i.e. ending regions, upper region, and lower region).
The disclosure refers to the holes in the trimmable portions as “drills”. As with “stretch” this appears to be a translational issue as drills is a verb while drill hole is the noun for the hole formed by drilling. Holes may be used instead of drill holes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The following is a non-comprehensive list, applicant is advised to address any similar issue to those listed below throughout the claims.
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 5 recites “said fixed uprights”. The previous recitation was “at least two fixed uprights” and consistent terminology should be used. Examiner notes the claim is an open ended comprising claim so “at least” is unnecessary to encompass the potential for more than two uprights, the open ended limitation two fixed uprights already encompasses the potential for more than two and as such examiner suggests “two fixed uprights”. The same issue occurs in all later recitations of the fixed uprights (i.e. none include two or at least two)
A similar issue “at least one fixed crossbeam” in line 4 changing to “said fixed crossbeam” in line 5 and all later recitations of crossbeam and “at least two movable uprights” in line 9 changing to “said movable uprights” in line 10 and all later recitations of the movable uprights (as with fixed later recitations lack two).
Claim 1 lines 7-8 recite “an access opening”. An opening was previously recited in the preamble and the access opening appear to be the same as the previous opening. As the preamble provides antecedent for the body of the claim the correct antecedent is “the”. Examiner notes consistent terminology should be used so the opening should either be access opening in all recitations or just opening.
A similar issue occurs in line 7 with respect the “a compartment”.
Claim 1 lines 17-18 recite “at least one of said fixed uprights, said fixed crossbeam and said movable uprights is”. The phrase “at least one of A and B” does not have a clearly defined meaning for patent claims and is variously used as either 1) “at least one of A or B” requiring at minimum one A or one B, 2) “at least one of A and B” requiring at minimum one A and one B, or 3) “at least one of A and/or B” requiring at minimum one A or one B but supporting one A and one B (cannot be used when combination of A and B is not supported). In the present application it is unclear which interpretation is meant, i.e. both and an or are supported so it is unclear if the present claim was meant to be the broader “or” or “and/or” or the narrower “and”. For purposes of examination will be interpreted as broadly as is reasonable as “or”.
A similar issue occurs in claim 2 with “at least one value”.
Claim 1 lines 21-22 recite “adapted to allow a cutting”. The term cutting appears to be used as a verb, which does not require the antecedent “a”. Cutting can also be a noun but the noun form does not make sense in view of the limitation as a whole.
Claim 10 line 7-8 recite “said sliding support”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and the sliding supports are not recited until claim 6. As claim 10 is further defining the movement means, which is initially defined in claim 6, claim 10 will be treated as depending from claim 6.
Examiner also suggests claim amendments not be made using track changes as the red track changes font turns into blurry light grey in the USPTO system making the amendments difficult to read as shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
108
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 that use the word “means” and are 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: movement means in claim 1.
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 § 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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub 2007/0283525 to Beaudoin (hereinafter Beaudoin).
Regarding claim 1, the kit is shown in Beaudoin in figures 1-29 with
at least two fixed uprights (97) and at least one fixed crossbeam (107), said fixed uprights (97) being associable with said fixed crossbeam (107) to define a fixed frame (figure 1) that can be attached to the access opening (7) of the compartment (with structure 9, includes garage as further taught in paragraph [0064]), wherein said access opening (7) has relevant reference dimensions (i.e. the opening 7 has a height and a width);
at least two movable uprights (43) and a plurality of panels (37), associable with said movable uprights (43) to define a movable leaf (13);
movement means (112f equivalent structures for moving leaf, with 39 and 11), associable between said movable uprights (43) and said fixed frame and adapted to determine a movement of said movable leaf (13) with respect to said fixed frame;
where said fixed uprights (97), said fixed crossbeam (107), said movable uprights (43), said panels (37) and said movement means (with at least 39 and 21) can be assembled together to form a main door (figure 1);
characterized by the fact that at least one of said fixed uprights (97), said fixed crossbeam (107) and said movable uprights (43) is made according to respective predefined standard dimensions, which are bigger than said reference dimensions (at least fixed uprights and crossbeam include trimmable portions 29 so are bigger than the opening the frame is formed in), and comprises at least one related trimmable portion (29), provided with at least one graduated reference scale (31) adapted to allow a cutting of said trimmable portion (29) depending on said reference dimensions.
Regarding claim 2, the reference dimensions comprise at least one value of height (height of opening 7) and one value of width (width of opening 7), said graduated reference scale (31) comprising a set of reference values corresponding to one of a set of values of height (see figures 14-16) and a set of values of width (see figure 19) in Beaudoin.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaudoin.
Regarding claim 3, the crossbeam (107) comprises two ending stretches (figure 1) in Beaudoin, however, only one end appears to have the trimmable portion (29, see figure 19).
Trimmable portions at both ends would be design choice duplication of parts.
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 kit of Beaudoin with trimmable portions on both ends of the crossbeam because trimmable portions at both ends would allow for easy adjustment of both ends rather than adjustment of just one end with the other end being a reference end (i.e. issues caused by the reference end being damaged or in some way not being square could more easily be corrected). See also MPEP 2144.04 VI Section B.
Regarding claim 4, each of said fixed uprights (97) comprises an upper stretch (figure 1 upper) and a lower stretch (figure 1 lower and figures 14-16), opposite said upper stretch (figure 1) in Beaudoin, however, the trimmable portion (29) is on the lower end.
Trimmable portions at the upper ends would be design choice reversal of parts.
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 kit of Beaudoin with trimmable portions on upper ends of the fixed uprights because trimmable portions at the upper ends would allow for the trimming to be based on the dimensions upward from the fixed floor and thereby would allow for easier checking of the trimming to ensure correct fit. See also MPEP 2144.04 VI Section A.
Regarding claim 5, Beaudoin is silent as to whether the movable uprights (43) include trimmable portions. Beaudoin does teach the panels (37) being adjustable in height and the movable uprights (43) being removed from the panels before adjustment and replaced after in paragraph [0132] and teaches trimmable portions (29) allowing for adjustment of dimension. As such it would be an obvious design choice to include the known trimmable portion on the movable upright that requires dimension adjusting.
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 kit of Beaudoin with trimmable portions on the movable uprights because the trimmable portions are known easy ways to adjust the dimensions of framing members as shown in Beaudoin and the movable uprights are frame members needing dimension adjustment per paragraph [0132] of Beaudoin so the addition of trimmable portions to the movable uprights would provide the known benefit of easy adjustment of the dimensions of the movable uprights.
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaudoin in view of WO 2020/152554 to Carlin (hereinafter Carlin).
Regarding claim 6, the movement means (with 39, 21) includes at least two sliding supports (39) sliding on the fixed uprights (97) in Beaudoin, however, the movement means does not include support arms.
Movement means with support arms are shown in Carlin in figures 1-7 where movement means (11,19,27) includes at least two lateral supporting arms (12), each having a first end (13) which can be hinged at one intermediate area (area with block 15) of a respective movable upright (8), and a second end (14) which can be hinged at a top of a respective fixed upright (2); and at least two sliding supports (17), each one fixable to a respective movable upright (8) and associable by sliding with a respective fixed upright (2). When provided to Beaudoin having the trimmable portions (29) and including adjustable mounting of the movement means (figures 7-13, 17, and 18) the arms would have trimmable portions as the arms would need adjusting relative to the door and opening size and Beaudoin uses trimmable portions for adjustment.
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 kit of Beaudoin with the movement means with support arms of Carlin because support arms were known movement means for tilting doors and having either tilting or sectional door options would allow for more market for the adjustable frame of Beaudoin.
Regarding claim 7, when provided with the support arms of Carling, the intermediate mounting area would have a positioning scale (31), similar to that used to position the movement means portion (71) in Beaudoin (see figures 17 and 18).
Regarding claim 8, when provided with the movement means of Carlin including tilting sliding supports, the movable upright would include a positioning scale (similar to that used to mount means portion 71 in figures 17-18) to allow for adjustment of the sliding means relative to the adjustment of the arms (i.e. to maintain balance) in Beaudoin.
Regarding claim 9, the positioning scales (31) include reference values corresponding to dimensions (height in the case of vertical structures like the movable uprights) in Beaudoin.
Regarding claim 10, the movement means (with 39 and 21) includes a rope assembly with rope (67) with one end attachable to the movable leaf (13) and the opposite end with a counterbalance (21, portion 71). When provided with the movement means of Carlin (i.e. tilting means) the rope would be attached to the door a predefined distance from the sliding support for proper balancing.
However, Beaudoin is silent as to whether the rope end is attached to the movable upright and the counterbalance is not a counterweight (counterbalance spring).
Rope attachment to the movable upright and a counterweight are shown in Carlin in figures 1-7 where rope (22) is attached to a rope support (25) on the movable upright (8) at one end and to counterweight (23) on the other.
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 kit of Beaudoin, having the movement means with support arms of Carlin, with the rope attachment and counterweight of Carlin because the rope attachment to the movable upright allowed for easy connection and balancing of the door leaf in a tilting movement means system and both counterbalance springs and counterweights were known in the art and the weight provided the known benefit of eliminating spring breakage hazards.
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 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
Prosecution Insights