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 .
The following final office action is in response to the reply filed December 29, 2025.
Specification
Since the applicant failed to present the amended abstract on a separate sheet as required by MPEP 608.01(b), it has not been considered. Accordingly, the previous objections to the abstract have been repeated below.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “[t]he present invention relates generally to” on line 1 can be easily implied and therefore should be deleted. On line 1, “a new and improved” can also be easily implied and should be deleted. Additionally, “[m]ore specifically, the invention relates to” on line 2 can be easily implied and should be deleted. Finally, the abstract is objected to because it fails to mention elements of the second embodiment of the invention.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because “each safety arm” on line 5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because the term “each” does not properly refer to the antecedent “a pair of safety arms” on line 2 of claim 10. It is suggested the applicant change “each safety arm” on line 5 of claim 10 to --each of said safety arms-- to avoid confusion.
Claim 10 is objected to because “the respective safety arm” on lines 5-6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 10 is objected to because “a tube clamp sleeve” on line 6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the tube clamp sleeve set forth above or is attempting to set forth another tube clamp sleeve in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 10 is objected to because “each respective safety arm” on line 7 brings the clarity of the claim into question because the term “each” does not properly refer to the antecedent “a pair of safety arms” on line 2 of claim 10.
Claim 17 is objected to because “the safety arm” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear to which one of the plurality of safety arms set forth above the applicant is referring.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown (US 2736553). An overhead door safety support comprising:
a safety arm 18 configured to extend and retract (note that the safety arm 18 extends and retracts relative to the front of the garage 10 as it moves along the sleeve 22);
a tube clamp sleeve 22;
a linear guide rail 14 (labeled below); and
a plurality of linear guide bearings (labeled below) (claim 1);
further comprised of an actuator 32 (claim 7);
further comprised of a connector bracket 82 (fig. 5) (claim 9).
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown as applied to claims 1, 7 and 9 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 4131830). Lee et al. discloses an extend switch 73 and a retraction switch 74 as shown in figure 2 (claim 2). Lee et al. further discloses a proximity switch trip arm 70 (figs. 2 and 4) configured to activate the extend switch 73 and the retraction switch 74.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Brown with switches and trip arm, as taught by Lee et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to control the movement of the garage door at the end positions thereof.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown as applied to claims 1, 7 and 9 above, and further in view of Mullet et al. (US 2006/0191205). Mullet et al. discloses a linear guide rail 17 supported by a linear guide rail bracket 16’.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Brown with linear guide rail brackets, as taught by Mullet et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to securely mount the linear guide rail to the structure of the garage.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown as applied to claims 1, 7 and 9 above, and further in view of Aquilina (US 4891908). Aquilina discloses a spring-loaded cap 98 (fig. 2B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Brown with springs and a spring loaded cap, as taught by Aquilina, with a reasonable expectation of success absorb shocks as the door is moved between opened and closed positions.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Mullet et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Aquilina (US 4891908). Aquilina discloses a the spring-loaded cap 98 attached to a safety arm 70 (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Brown with springs and a spring loaded cap, as taught by Aquilina, with a reasonable expectation of success absorb shocks as the door is moved between opened and closed positions.
Claims 10 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis (US 3012520). Curtis discloses an overhead door safety support comprising:
a safety arm 19 (fig. 1);
a tube clamp sleeve 61 (fig. 2); and
wherein each safety arm 19 comprises a tube connector clamp 61 (fig. 2) affixed to the respective safety arm 19, a tube clamp sleeve 65, and a tube clamp spring 63 connecting the tube connector clamp 61 to the tube clamp sleeve 65 allowing each respective safety arm 19 to avoid direct contact with the ground.
Curtis is silent concerning a pair of safety arms.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Curtis with a pair of safety arms 19 with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure the smooth movement of the garage door since both sides of the garage door will be driven at the same time and because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With respect to claim 14, Curtis further discloses an extend switch 80 and a retraction switch 82 (fig 2).
With respect to claim 15, Curtis further discloses a proximity switch trip arm 25 (fig. 2) configured to activate the extend switch 80 and the retraction switch 82.
With respect to claim 16, Curtis further discloses a spring-loaded cap 65a (fig. 2).
With respect to claim 17, Curtis further discloses that the spring-loaded cap 65a is attached to the safety arm 19.
With respect to claim 18, Curtis further discloses an actuator 34.
With respect to claim 19, Curtis further discloses a proximity switch mount 83.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aquilina (US 4891908) in view of Brown (US 2736553). Aquilina discloses an overhead door safety support comprising:
a pair of safety arms 72, 78 (fig. 2) each configured to extend and retract (note that the arms extend toward and retract away from the structure of the garage);
a linear guide rail (labeled below);
an actuator 30 (fig. 3); and
a limit switch 150 (fig. 2).
Aquilina is silent concerning a pair of linear guide rails and a pair of linear guide rails each comprising a plurality of linear guide bearings.
However, Brown discloses linear guide rails 14 (only one of which is shown in figure 1, but see line 25 of column 2) each comprising a plurality of linear guide bearings (labeled below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Aquilina with a pair of linear guide rails comprising a plurality of linear guide bearings, as taught by Brown, with a reasonable expectation of success to accurately guide the garage door as it moves between open and closed positions.
PNG
media_image1.png
1670
1136
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1662
1132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634