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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The request filed on February 5, 2026 for a Request for Continuing Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 is acceptable and an RCE has been established. Any previous finality is hereby withdrawn and a new action on the merits follows. Any newly-submitted claims have been added. An action on the RCE follows.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because “a spring force to a bolt” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how a force is exerted to a bolt. It appears that the force is exerted on the bolt.
Claim 11 is objected to because “is engaged to” on line 4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the display case door is engaged to the detent. It appears that the display case door is engaged with the detent rather than being engaged to the detent.
Claim 24 is objected to because “the pre-determined angle spaced apart from the opening to an open position” on lines 19-20 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the predetermined angle and the open position differ. It appears that when the door is positioned at the predetermined angle the door is in the open position. Thus, it is unclear how the door can be moved to an open position from pre-determined angle position of the door.
Claim 26 is objected to because “to open the display case door to an open position relative to the enclosure to an open position” on lines 22-23 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the door can be moved to an open position and then moved again to an open position. Are the open positions different positions of the door or is the applicant attempting to refer to the same open position of the door?
Claim 26 is objected to because “configuring the torque rod close the display case door” on line 24 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is grammatically incorrect. Is the applicant attempting to set forth configuring the torque rod to close the display case door?
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-3, 7-26 and 28 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.
Recitations such as “torque” on 13 of claim 1 renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the torque set forth on line 11 of claim 1 or is attempting to set forth another torque in addition to the one set forth above.
Recitations such as “one or more sensors” on lines 1-2 of claim 20 renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the one or more sensors set forth above or is attempting to set forth one or more sensors in addition to the ones set forth above.
Recitations such as “a closed position” on line 18 of claim 24 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the closed position set forth above or is attempting to set forth another closed position in addition to the one set forth above.
Recitations such as “a closed position” on line 21 of claim 26 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the closed position set forth above or is attempting to set forth another closed position in addition to the one set forth above.
Recitations such as “an open position” on lines 22-23 of claim 26 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the open position set forth above or is attempting to set forth another open position in addition to the one set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 7-26 and 28 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, absent applicant’s own disclosure, fails to teach the entire combination of elements set forth in the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to teach the step of configuring the torque rod to move the display case door to the closed position as set forth on lines 19-20 of claim 1 and lines 20-21 of claim 24. Additionally, the prior art of record fails to teach the step of configuring the torque rod to close the display case door as set forth on line 24 of claim 26. The examiner is interpreting the step of “configuring the torque rod” as comprising applying a torque to the torque rod to store a potential force in the torque rod which can be released such the potential force stored in the torque rod closes the door.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the indication of allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS NOT MADE FINAL.
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 on 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
Prosecution Insights