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 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 32 and 54.
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: 59.
The drawings are objected to because:
Per 37 C.F.R. 1.84(q) lead lines should extend from the reference numeral to the feature indicated. A large number of reference lines do not extend to the feature indicated. A non-comprehensive list of such lines is included below but applicant is advised to review all the figures for additional instances.
Figure 1 includes two reference numeral 3 for the one motor.
Figure 1 includes two reference numeral 45 for the first worm, the lower of which has a reference line that appears to point to toothed wheel 432.
Due to the number of teeth and other lines in figure 1 it is unclear what the reference line for reference numeral 44 points to. Examiner suggest the pin for second reducer 43 would be more easily indicated in figure 5.
The same issue occurs for reference numerals 432 and 431, with neither reference line appearing to actually touch the toothed wheel. As the toothed wheels are clearly indicated in figure 5 examiner suggests the reference numerals and lines be removed form figure 1.
Figure 2 appears to indicate pin 44 with the reference line for second reducer 43.
Figure 3 has reversed reference numerals 411 and 412 (i.e. 412 points to 411 and 411 points to 412).
Figure 3 reference numeral 42 does not point to the pin, the pin is not shown in figure 3.
The relief 62 is shown as different structures in figures 4 and 5, appears to be an issue with the reference line in figure 4 pointing to the spring rather than the relief.
Figure 4 has numerous issues: the figure includes reference numeral 42 for the pin for first reducer 41, however, the figure appears to show second reducer 43 (as supported by figures 1 and 5). Reference numeral 44 points to third toothed wheel 431, not pin 44. Reference numeral 43 points to fourth toothed wheel 432, not second reducer 43 (which would be indicated with an arrow, not a reference line).
Figure 5 reference line for reference numeral 63 does not extend to the spring.
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:
Page 6 line 12 recites second toothed wheel 422 instead of 412.
Page 6 line 18 recites third toothed wheel 4311 instead of 431.
Page 6 line 18 indicates the third toothed wheel is of the helical type, however, this is contradicted by page 4 lines 11-12, page 6 lines 11-12, and claim 5 indicating the third toothed wheel is a straight tooth type. It appears the helical may have been a typo.
Page 8 lines 8-9 incorrectly describe figure 4 as showing first reducer 41 when the figure appears to show second reducer 43.
Page 8 line 10-10 describe the functioning of the safety device as the fourth toothed wheel climbing second worm 46 (or typo 48). It appears from the figures and the rest of the disclosure that fourth toothed wheel 432 engaged first worm 45, not second worm 46.
Page 8 lines 14-15 include incorrect placement of reference numeral 43, i.e. “the second reducer are disengaged 43” instead of “the second reducer 43 is disengaged”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 2-3 recites “such as a door of household appliances, such as washing machines, dishwashers, ovens, and the like”. The phrase "such as" renders the claim unclear because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 line 1 recites “wherein guide”. Guide lacks proper antecedent (a or the). It appears that the guide was meant, however, examiner notes that claim 10 depends from claim 7 while the guide is not recited until claim 8. For purposes of examination claim 10 will be treated as depending from claim 8.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: safety mechanism in claim 7.
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 § 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) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 2025/0040783 to Dirnberger (hereinafter Dirnberger) in view of KR 10-2022-0022971 to Kim (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, the door opener is shown in Dirnberger in figures 1A-7C with
a containment area (area in body 310 containing opener, shown in figure 6),
an electric motor (400), capable of rotating in the direction of rotation or in the opposite direction of rotation,
an actuator member (110), having a rack (132,142), and
a transmission assembly (401,100), coupled to said electric motor (400) and engaged with said rack (132,142) of said actuator member (110),
wherein, following the operation of said electric motor (400) in one direction of rotation or in the opposite direction of rotation, said actuator member (110) is movable from a retracted position, wherein said actuator member is at least partially inserted into said containment area, and at least one extracted position, wherein said actuator member extracted from said containment casing (movement arrows figures 3A extending and 3B retracting),
wherein said transmission assembly (401,100) comprises
a first reducer (100) engaged with the rack (132,142) of said actuator member (110),
a second reducer(unnumbered, shown in figure 5A engaging wheel 150 of first reducer 100), engaged with said first reducer,
a first worm gear (unnumbered, shown in figure 4 engaging worm of motor 400), engaged with said second reducer, and
a second worm screw (unnumbered, shown in figure 4 extending from motor 400), engaged with said first worm gear and keyed to said electric motor (400).
However, Dirnberger shows a first worm wheel instead of a worm screw and does not show a casing.
As both worm wheels and worm screws were known in the art (see Dirnberger figure 4), using two worm screws rather than a worm screw and a worm wheel would be a design choice.
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 opener of Dirnberger with two worm screws because two worm screws allow for the opener to take up less space (see also MPEP 2143 substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results obvious).
A casing is shown in Kim in figures 1-5 where door opener (100) includes a casing (110).
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 opener of Dirnberger with the casing of Kim because casings provided the known benefit of enclosing devices such as openers in a single unit and limiting contaminants from getting into the parts of the device (i.e. gears and motor).
Regarding claim 2, the transmission assembly (100,401) is configured to prevent said actuator member (110) which is in said extracted or retracted position, from passing, in case of stress (paragraph [0061] actuator 110 not moved), respectively to said retracted or extracted position in Dirnberger.
Regarding claim 3, wherein said first reducer (100) comprises a first toothed wheel (134,144), engaged with said rack (132,142), and a second toothed wheel (150), coaxial and integrated with said first toothed wheel (134,144), engaged with said second reducer (shown in figure 5), wherein said second toothed wheel (150) has a larger diameter than said first toothed wheel (134,144) in Dirnberger.
Regarding claim 4, wherein said second reducer comprises a third toothed wheel (unnumbered, shown in figure 5A engaging 150), engaged with said first reducer (100), and a fourth toothed wheel (unnumbered, shown in figure 4 as leftmost wheel), coaxial and integrated with said third toothed wheel, engaged with said first worm screw (engages worm gear indirectly via additional reducer, would engage worm screw when modified as above), wherein said fourth toothed wheel has a larger diameter than said third toothed wheel in Dirnberger.
Regarding claim 5, wherein said third toothed wheel (figure 5) is of the straight tooth type in Dirnberger.
Regarding claim 7, the opener further comprising a safety mechanism (120), for the disengagement of said transmission assembly (100,401) from said electric motor (400) in case of effort of said electric motor or in case of stress on said actuator member beyond a predefinable threshold if it were forced to move from said extracted position to said retracted position and vice versa (further taught paragraph [0061]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 9-11 (see above claim objection for claim 10) are objected to as depending from an objected to claim and have not otherwise been examined for patentability.
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