DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received June 12, 2026 have been considered but are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to recite “a sliding door hardware coupled to an upper surface of the top portion and the top of the door frame.” D’Ercole teaches the door has a top portion extending between the first side portion and the second side portion (Fig 1). Further, D’Ercole teaches a chamber in the top portion (Fig 4), the bottom of the chamber provides an upper surface of the top portion to which the sliding door hardware is coupled (Fig 4). The upper surface continues along the top portion of the door and extends between the first and second side portions. Therefore it is understood that D’Ercole teaches the added limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
392
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
820
962
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 5-9, 11, 26, 27, and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Ercole (US 3,494,408) in view of Adderton (US 2011/0079762).
Regarding claim 1, D’Ercole discloses a bifold door for a modular wall panel system, the bifold door comprising:
a door frame having a first side (12), a second side (11), and a top (10) (Fig 1);
a first side portion (left side of 14 shown in Fig 1 adjacent 12) configured to strike the first side (12) of the door frame when the bifold door is in a closed configuration (Fig 1), a second side portion (right side of 13 shown in Fig 1 adjacent 11),
a first leaf (13) rotating about a first axis of rotation (axis of 16), a second leaf (14), a top portion (top of 13 and 14) extending between the first side portion and the second side portion (Fig 1);
a sliding door hardware (Fig 4) coupled to an upper surface of the top portion and the top of the door frame such that the bifold door is supported from the top of the door frame (Fig 1; as discussed above, D’Ercole teaches the door has a top portion extending between the first side portion and the second side portion (Fig 1) and a chamber in the top portion (Fig 4), the bottom of the chamber provides an upper surface of the top portion to which the sliding door hardware is coupled (Fig 4) and the upper surface continues along the top portion of the door and extends between the first and second side portions), the sliding door hardware being configured to translate the bifold door within the door frame such that in the closed configuration the bifold door extends between and engages the first and second sides of the door frame (Figs 5-6), the sliding door hardware including a roller hardware (29) rotating about an axis;
a first plurality of hinges (16) spaced apart vertically along the second side portion coupling the second leaf and the second side of the door frame; and
a second plurality of hinges (15) spaced apart vertically between the first leaf and the second leaf operably coupling a first end of the first leaf to a first end of the second leaf,
the second plurality of hinges (15) configured to rotate the first leaf and the second leaf apart (Fig 6) between an open configuration and the closed configuration (Figs 1, 5, and 6),
each of the second plurality of hinges (15) have a first leaf portion and a second leaf portion in the form of a pair of flat plates connected to the first end of the first and second leaves, respectively (D’Ercole discloses that the hinges are butt hinges, col 3, lines 17-18).
D’Ercole fails to disclose the sliding door hardware including a roller hardware (29) rotating about a second axis of rotation, wherein the first axis of rotation and the second axis of rotation are angularly offset. However, Adderton teaches that it is known for a bifold door having sliding door hardware to include a roller hardware (62) rotating about a second axis of rotation (62’) that is angularly offset from a first axis of rotation (41’). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify D’Ercole such that the roller hardware is oriented at an angle, as taught by Adderton, since it is a known arrangement for equivalently guiding a bifold door. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 2, modified D’Ercole discloses wherein the second plurality of hinges are configured to lessen a gap between the first leaf and the second leaf when the bifold door is in the closed configuration (Figs 5 and 6)).
Regarding claim 3, modified D’Ercole discloses wherein the second plurality of hinges are configured to lessen acoustic transmission through the bifold door by lessening a gap between the first leaf and the second leaf (by lessening a gap the leaves are closer together and reduce noise/acoustic transmission).
Regarding claim 5, modified D’Ercole discloses wherein the second plurality of hinges are arranged between the first leaf and the second leaf when the bifold door is in the closed configuration (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 6, modified D’Ercole discloses wherein the second plurality of hinges are hidden between the first leaf and the second leaf when viewed from at least one side of the bifold door in the closed configuration (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 7, modified D’Ercole discloses wherein the first plurality of hinges and the second plurality of hinges are configured to increase rigidity of the bifold door by stabilizing the bifold door (the hinges are rigid and support the door and therefore stabilize the door).
Regarding claim 8, modified D’Ercole discloses wherein the first plurality of hinges and the second plurality of hinges are configured to lessen acoustic transmission through the bifold door by creating contact between the first leaf and the door frame (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 9, modified D’Ercole discloses wherein the sliding door hardware is coupled to the top portion adjacent to the first side portion (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 11, modified D’Ercole discloses wherein the sliding door hardware translates within a channel on the door frame and the channel includes a stop such that the sliding door hardware does not translate out of the channel (Figs 1, 2, 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 26, modified D’Ercole in view of Adderton teaches wherein the first axis of rotation and the second axis of rotation are substantially orthogonal (Fig 3 of Adderton).
Regarding claim 27, modified D’Ercole in view of Adderton teaches wherein the roller hardware is mounted on a horizontal axis (62’ shown in Fig 3 of Adderton).
Regarding claim 30, modified D’Ercole discloses wherein the first plurality of hinges (16) is spaced from a top and bottom side portion (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 31, modified D’Ercole discloses wherein the sliding door hardware is configured to translate the bifold door within the door frame from the closed configuration having a fully expanded position (Fig 1) to an open configuration having a fully folded position (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 32, modified D’Ercole discloses wherein the roller hardware, as modified with the roller hardware of Adderton discussed above, translates along an axis of translation along the top portion and between the side portions, and wherein the first leaf and second leaf are angularly offset with the axis of translation when the bifold door is in the fully folded position (Fig 5 of D’Ercole).
Regarding claim 33, modified D’Ercole discloses wherein in the closed configuration, the second plurality of hinges are arranged between the first end of the first leaf and the first end of the second leaf and are hidden between the first and second leaves (Figs 1, 5, and 6).
Regarding claim 34, D’Ercole disclose that the sliding door hardware is fixedly coupled to the upper surface of the top portion.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Ercole and Adderton as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Long (EP 3 122 979).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, D’Ercole fails to disclose a rounded edge and a gasket. However, Long teaches that it is known for a first side portion of a door leaf to have a rounded edge (Figs 5- 5A) for engaging a frame and a gasket between the frame and door leaf. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify D’Ercole such that the first side portion has a rounded edge, since it is a known technique, as taught by Long, for providing an engaging edge and seal between a door and frame. D’Ercole would be provided with a rounded edge at the first side portion in order to provide an improved seal in the manner taught by Long. As modified, Long teaches the rounded edge of the first side portion is configured to contact and rotate about a curved gasket arranged with the door frame.
Claims 15-20, 22, 24, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Ercole in view of Adderton and Long.
Regarding claims 15 and 24, D’Ercole discloses a modular wall panel system comprising:
a door frame for use with the modular wall panel system,
the door frame having a first side (12), a second side (11), and a top (10) (Fig 1);
a bifold door including a first side portion (left side of 14) configured to strike the first side of the door frame when the bifold door is in a closed configuration (Fig 1), a second side portion (right side of 13) configured to engage the second side of the door frame (Fig 1), a first leaf (13) rotating about a first axis of rotation (about axis of 16), a second leaf (14), a top portion extending between the first side portion and the second side portion (top of leaves);
a sliding door hardware (Fig 4) coupled to an upper surface of the top portion of the panel and the top of the door frame, the sliding door hardware being configured to translate the bifold door within the door frame such that in the closed configuration the bifold door engages the first and second side of the door frame (Fig 1), the sliding door hardware including a roller hardware (Fig 4) rotating about a second axis of rotation,
a first plurality of hinges (16) spaced apart vertically along the second side portion (right side of 13) coupling the first leaf (13) and the second side (11) of the door frame, and configured to facilitate contact between the second side portion and the second side (11) of the door frame; and
a second plurality of hinges (15) spaced apart vertically between the first leaf (13) and the second leaf (14) operably coupling a first end the first leaf and a first end of the second leaf and configured to lessen a gap between the first leaf and the second leaf in the closed configuration and rotate the first leaf and the second leaf apart in transitioning between an open configuration and the closed configuration (Figs 1, 5, and 6),
the second plurality of hinges (15) having a plurality of first leaf portions and a plurality of second leaf portions, wherein the plurality of first and second leaf portions are flat plates (butt hinges) connected to the first end of the first and second leaves, respectively.
D'Ercole fails to disclose wherein the first axis of rotation and the second axis of rotation are angularly offset. However, Adderton teaches that it is known for a bifold door having sliding door hardware to include a roller hardware (62) rotating about a second axis of rotation (62’) that is angularly offset from a first axis of rotation (41’). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify D’Ercole such that the roller hardware is oriented at an angle, as taught by Adderton, since it is a known arrangement for equivalently guiding a bifold door. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
D’Ercole fails to disclose a gasket arranged with the first side of the door frame configured to contact the first side portion of the bifold door in the closed configuration. However, Long teaches that it is known for a first side portion of a door leaf to have a rounded edge (Figs 5- 5A) for engaging a frame and a gasket between the frame and door leaf. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify D’Ercole such that the first side portion has a rounded edge, since it is a known technique, as taught by Long, for providing an engaging edge and seal between a door and frame. D’Ercole would be provided with a rounded edge at the first side portion in order to provide an improved seal in the manner taught by Long. As modified, D’Ercole is provided with teaches a gasket in the manner taught by Long arranged with the first side of the door frame configured to contact the first side portion of the bifold door in the closed configuration and the rounded edge of the first side portion is configured to contact and rotate about a curved gasket arranged with the door frame.
Regarding claim 16, modified D’Ercole discloses wherein the second plurality of hinges (15) are arranged to be hidden between the first leaf and the second leaf when viewed from at least one side of the bifold door in the closed configuration (Figs 1, 5, and 6).
Regarding claim 17, modified D’Ercole discloses wherein the second plurality of hinges (15) are configured to lessen acoustic transmission through the bifold door by lessening the gap between the first leaf and the second leaf (by lessening a gap the leaves are closer together and reduce noise/acoustic transmission).
Regarding claim 18, modified D’Ercole discloses wherein the first plurality of hinges and the second plurality of hinges are configured to increase rigidity of the bifold door by stabilizing the bifold door (the hinges are rigid and support the door and therefore stabilize the door).
Regarding claim 19, modified D’Ercole discloses wherein the first plurality of hinges and the second plurality of hinges are configured to lessen acoustic transmission through the bifold door by creating contact between the first leaf and the door frame (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 20, modified D’Ercole discloses wherein the sliding door hardware is coupled to the top portion adjacent to the first side portion (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 22, modified D’Ercole discloses wherein the sliding door hardware translates within a channel on the door frame, and the channel includes a stop such that the sliding door hardware does not translate out of the channel (Figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 28, modified D’Ercole in view of Adderton teaches wherein the first axis of rotation and the second axis of rotation are substantially orthogonal (Fig 3 of Adderton).
Regarding claim 29, modified D’Ercole in view of Adderton teaches wherein the roller hardware is mounted on a horizontal axis (62’ shown in Fig 3 of Adderton).
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 Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate 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.
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights