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 filed 9/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not all persuasive.
In response to the arguments regarding the 112a. The rejections are maintained. The ranges and dimensions are not described or shown. No dimensions are provided in the drawings.
In response to the arguments regarding the 103 rejections. Flora teaches only two screws and the examiner asserts the use of #6 - 32 screw is obvious as #6 – 32 would suitable for Thiel and using them would be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (machine screws), with a reasonable expectation of success (securing the inner plate to the outer plate; see MPEP 2141 III. E). It’s also unclear what “Heid” is referring to.
In response to the arguments regarding the drawings, the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The drawings do not show the door jamb cavity.
In regards to the 112a arguments of claim 7. The specific range is not shown. The examiner disagrees these dimensions are inherent. The original disclosure does not have support for the drawing being drawn to scale.
In regards to the 112a arguments of claim 12-14. The original disclosure does not have support for a conventional strike plate having these specified dimensions. This is not readily recognized by the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not have support for the drawing being drawn to scale.
The examiner agrees that claim 10 is no longer indefinite.
The examiner maintains “conventional” in claims 12-14 is still indefinite. One of a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the scope. It’s not clear what range of strike plates applicant considers conventional.
The examiner maintains claim 15 lacks proper antecedent basis as the claim uses “the” to describe elements not previously described. The claim needs to clarify the limitation is referring to the central rectangular hollow gap.
In claims 19-20 the examiner maintains the claims are indefinite. The claims should clearly reflect the terms “latch opening and deadbolt opening” are referring to the “latch and/or deadbolt cavities”.
In regards to the arguments against the 103 rejections.
The examiner agrees Thiel does not teach the concealment features as in the specification however the examiner asserts the concealment feature is a taught as claimed. Further clarification is needed. The examiner asserts Thiel’s outer plate is slight smaller than the cavity. As it is slightly smaller in some dimensions (such as 44 being shorter than the depth of the cavity). The examiner disagrees Flora destroys Thiel. The modification would improve Thiel’s range of motion and would still be suitable for the same purposes. The examiner also disagrees Thiel and Flora are substantially different. They are both adjustable strike plates. Flora provides a clear motivation for its combination with Thiel and substantial reconstruction is not required and there is a reasonable expectation of success with the combination. The examiner would also like to note Flora does not teach “a single plate” system and teaches three plates as well (best seen in fig 5). The examiner finds the specific sizes and ranges as obvious as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. And the #6 x 1.25” screws per MPEP 2141 III. E. #6 x 1.25” are well known in the art and would be recognized as per “Home Security Upgrade” for increasing security. The examiner notes Floras uses only two screws for adjustment. Thiel and/or Flora suggest the steps of the method claims. The examiner maintains the cavity depth is obvious as per MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
The examiner would also like to note the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the outer plate is sized to be slightly smaller than the door jamb cavity“ of claim 15 and “wherein the outer plate is sized slightly smaller than the door jamb cavity” of claim 23 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections are overcome by the present amendments, however new ones have arisen.
Claims 15 and 22 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15 “wherein the outer plate comprising one central rectangular hollow gap” should be “wherein the outer plate comprises one central rectangular hollow gap
In claim 22 “extending outward from its top, bottom, left, and right sides to stabilize” should be “extending outward from top, bottom, left, and right sides to stabilize”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 12-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to claims 7, “wherein the horizontal range is up to 0.24" and the vertical range is up to 0.9” is new matter.
In regards to claims 12-14, “a conventional strike plate with a central rectangular hollow gap measuring 1.1" in length and 0.7" in width” is new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Some of the previous 112b rejections have been overcome however some issues remain.
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 6 and 12-22 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.
In regards to claim 6, “and passing through elongated openings in the middle plate into aligned holes of the inner plate” is indefinite. This is because the best of the examiner’s understanding these introduced elements are the same as “a top and bottom hollow indentation” of the middle plate and “one top circular hole, and one bottom hole” of the inner plate introduced in claim 1. Thus, it’s unclear if new elements were intended to be introduced or if the limitations are referring to the previous elements. For the purposes of examination, the latter is assumed.
In regards to claims 12- 14 the term “conventional” renders the claims indefinite as it’s unclear what qualifies as conventional and the disclosure offers no guidance to ascertaining what is considered conventional. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as best understood.
In regards to claim 15, “inner plate gap, the middle plate gap, and the outer plate gap” lack antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is assumed to read “the central rectangular hollow gap of the inner plate, the central rectangular hollow gap of the middle plate, and the central rectangular hollow gap of the outer plate”.
In regards to claims 19 and 20, it’s unclear if the latch opening and the deadbolt opening are the same as the latch and/or deadbolt cavities of claim 15. For the purposes of examination, they are assumed to be the same elements.
In regards to claim 22 “the middle plate comprises four perpendicular protuberances extending outward” is indefinite. Because “four perpendicular protuberances” appears to be introducing new elements however “a right rectangular perpendicular protuberance, a top perpendicular protuberance, a left perpendicular protuberance, and a bottom perpendicular protuberance” were already introduced in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is assuming the limitation is referring to the perpendicular protuberances previously introduced.
Claims 16-18 are rejected due to their dependencies on the rejected claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 11-14, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel US 4105235 A (hereinafter Thiel) in view of Flora US 2153080 A (hereinafter Flora).
In regards to claim 1, Thiel teaches an adjustable striker plate apparatus comprising an inner plate (50), a middle plate (22), an outer plate (40), and two sets of screws, a first screw set (32) and a second screw set (56), wherein the inner plate comprises one central rectangular hollow gap (see fig 4), one top circular hole (one of the upper 54 wrt fig 4), and one bottom hole (one of the bottom 54 wrt fig 4); wherein the middle plate comprises one central rectangular hollow gap (36), a top right hole (top right 30 wrt fig 4), a top left hole (top left 30 wrt fig 4), a bottom right hole (bottom right 30 wrt fig 4), a bottom left hole (bottom left 30 wrt fig 4), a right rectangular perpendicular protuberance (right of 36 wrt fig 4), a top perpendicular protuberance (top above 36 wrt fig 4), a left perpendicular protuberance (24), and a bottom perpendicular protuberance (below 36 wrt fig 4); wherein the outer plate comprising one central rectangular hollow gap (42), one top circular hole (one of top 48 wrt fig 4), one bottom hole (one of bottom 48 wrt fig 4), and one semi-circular protuberance (46), wherein the three plates are placed parallel to each other (see fig 4), forming a central rectangular an apparatus-cavity by the inner plate gap, the middle plate gap, and the outer plate gap (see figs 3-4); and wherein the apparatus is detachably attached to a door jamb of a doorframe, and the apparatus is configured to be completely repositioned and adjusted without redrilling holes in the door frame (see figs 3-4).
However, Thiel does not teach one central rectangular hollow gap comprising a top and bottom hollow indentation.
Flora teaches a similar device where a central rectangular hollow gap (18) comprising a top (top 20 wrt fig 3) and bottom hollow indentation (bottom 20 wrt fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have modified Thiel to use one central rectangular hollow gap comprising a top and bottom hollow indentation in order to allow adjustment longitudinally and vertically (Flora page 1 left Col lines 4-11).
In regards to claim 2, Thiel in view of Flora teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the inner plate is placed next to the door jamb (Thiel: see fig 4), the middle plate is sandwiched between the inner plate and the outer plate, and the outer plate is placed and resides over the middle plate (Thiel: see fig 4).
In regards to claim 6, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Thiel in view of Flora teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the outer plate is placed and resides over the middle plate through the holes of the middle plate with the second screw set comprising two screws, the two screws being positioned at a top-middle location and a bottom-middle location of the inner plate and the outer plate (Flora see figs 3 and 5; with the modification of Flora it logically flows the screws would be placed in this manner), and passing through elongated openings in the middle plate into aligned holes of the inner plate (see figs 3 and 5).
However, both Thiel and Flora are silent on of said screws are #6 – 32 screws.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have used #6 – 32 screws as #6 – 32 would suitable for Thiel and using them would be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (machine screws), with a reasonable expectation of success (securing the inner plate to the outer plate; see MPEP 2141 III. E).
In regards to claim 7, Thiel in view of Flora teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein two screws of the second screw set, when offset, the outer plate allows a greater range of motion both horizontally and vertically for alignment adjustment (flora see fig 1).
However, Thiel does not teach wherein the horizontal range is up to 0.24" and the vertical range is up to 0.9". Thiel does not teach any specific measurements. However, Thiel could very well have a horizontal range is up to 0.24" and a vertical range up to 0.9”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have Thiel with a horizontal range is up to 0.24" and a vertical range up to 0.9” as doing so would only require a change in the size/proportion of Thiel (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B).
In regards to claim 8, Thiel in view of Flora teaches the apparatus of claim 1, the middle plate and the outer plate entirely conceal the inner plate in at least three directions (see reference image 1; when viewed from the direction of the arrows).
PNG
media_image1.png
410
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference image 1
In regards to claim 11, Thiel in view of Flora teaches the apparatus of claim 1, the apparatus is reversible and is mountable on either side of the doorframe (Thiel see fig 4, its symmetric and therefore could be mounted on either side).
In regards to claim 12, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Thiel in view of Flora teaches the apparatus of claim 1, where the apparatus is substitutable for a conventional strike plate with a central rectangular hollow gap measuring 1.1" in length and 0.7" in width (Thiel is capable of being substitutable for a conventional door strike; Col 5 lines 13-22).
In regards to claim 13, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Thiel in view of Flora teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is a replacement for any conventional latch plate (Thiel is capable of being substitutable for a conventional latch plate; Col 5 lines 13-22)
However, Thiel does not teach the apparatus is substitutable for a strike plate with a central rectangular hollow gap measuring 1.1" in length and 0.7" in width. Thiel does not teach any specific measurements. However, Thiel could very well be substitutable with a strike plate with a central rectangular hollow gap measuring 1.1" in length and 0.7" in width.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have Thiel be substitutable for a strike plate with a central rectangular hollow gap measuring 1.1" in length and 0.7" in width as doing so would only require a change in the size/proportion of Thiel (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B).
In regards to claim 14, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Thiel in view of Flora teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is a replacement for any conventional deadbolt plate (Thiel is capable of being substitutable for a conventional deadbolt plate; Col 5 lines 13-22).
However, Thiel does not teach the apparatus is substitutable for a strike plate with a central rectangular hollow gap measuring 1.1" in length and 0.7" in width. Thiel does not teach any specific measurements. However, Thiel could very well be substitutable with a strike plate with a central rectangular hollow gap measuring 1.1" in length and 0.7" in width.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have Thiel be substitutable for a strike plate with a central rectangular hollow gap measuring 1.1" in length and 0.7" in width as doing so would only require a change in the size/proportion of Thiel (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B).
In regards to claim 21, Thiel in view of Flora teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the outer plate is placed and resides over the middle plate (Thiel see fig 4); wherein the middle plate is placed and resides over the inner plate through the top circular holes of the inner and outer plates (Thiel see fig 4 and Flora see figs 3 and 5) and the bottom holes of the inner and outer plates with the second screw set comprising only two screws (Flora see fig 5 With Thiel implementing Flora’s adjustment style it logically flows only two screw are used), wherein the top holes are located in a top middle of the outer and the inner plates (Flora see fig 5) and wherein the bottom holes are located in a bottom middle of the outer and the inner plates (Flora see fig 5), the screws passing through elongated openings in the middle plate into aligned holes of the inner plate (Flora see fig 5), the cooperation of which permits four-directional motion in up and down horizontal motion and right and left vertical motion for alignment adjustment (Flora page 1 left Col lines 4-11), and see fig 3).
However, both Thiel and Flora are silent on if said screws are #6 – 32 screws.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have used #6 – 32 screws as #6 – 32 would suitable for Thiel and using them would be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (machine screws), with a reasonable expectation of success (securing the inner plate to the outer plate; see MPEP 2141 III. E).
In regards to claim 22, Thiel in view of Flora teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Flora does not teach wherein the middle plate comprises four perpendicular protuberances extending outward from its top, bottom, left, and right sides to stabilize the apparatus within a door jamb cavity.
Flora teaches the middle plate comprises four perpendicular protuberances (teeth of left and right sides and bottom and top sides wrt fig 3) extending outward from its top, bottom, left, and right sides (see fig 3; teeth best seen in figs 4-5) to stabilize the apparatus within a door jamb cavity (page 1 right col, lines 14-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Thiel with four perpendicular protuberances such as in Flora in order to allow for easier installation).
In regards to claim 23, Thiel in view of Flora teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the outer plate is sized slightly smaller than the door jamb cavity (at least in some dimensions) such that the outer plate can be adjusted within the cavity during installation (Thiel see fig 2 and Flora fig 1).
In regards to claim 24, Thiel in view of Flora teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first screw set is configured exclusively to secure the middle plate non-adjustably to the door jamb, and the second screw set is configured exclusively to secure the outer plate adjustably over the middle plate, thereby providing repositioning without redrilling (Thiel see fig 3 and Flora see fig 5).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel in view of Flora as applied to claims 1-2, 6-8, 11-14, 21, and 23-24 above, and further in view of NPL “Home security Upgrade”.
In regards to claim 3, Theil in view of Flora teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the middle plate is secured over the inner to the door jamb with the first screw set comprising four wood screws (see Thiel fig 4).
However, Thiel does not teach the screws are #6 x 1.25 screws, although Thiel does appear to show longer than conventional screws (see fig 2).
Home security Upgrade teaches using longer screws on a strike plate makes a home more secure and that conventionally much smaller screws are used (@1:07).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have used longer screws in Thiel as doing so would make the strike plate more secure and #6 x 1.25” screws in particular since is it’s a screw which would be longer that would be obvious to choose (See MPEP 2141 III E).
In regards to claim 4, Thiel in view of Flora teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first screw set comprises four wood screws (heil fig 4), and wherein the four screws fit into the four corners of the middle plate (heil fig 4).
However, Thiel does not teach the screws are #6 x 1.25 screws, although Thiel does appear to show longer than conventional screws (see fig 2).
Home security Upgrade teaches using longer screws on a strike plate makes a home more secure and that conventionally much smaller screws are used (@1:07).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have used longer screws in Thiel as doing so would make the strike plate more secure and #6 x 1.25” screws in particular since is it’s a screw which would be longer that would be obvious to choose (See MPEP 2141 III E).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel in view of Flora as applied to claims 1-2, 6-8, 11-14, 21, and 23-24 above, and further in view of Non-patent Literature “Mortise Cut Modification & Strike Plate Installation”.
In regards to claim 10, Thiel in view of Flora teaches apparatus of claim 1.
However, Thiel does not teach wherein the doorframe cavity is increased in depth by 5/16" to house the middle plate and the adjustable inner plate assembly.
Mortise Cut Modification & Strike Plate Installation teaches removing a poor condition strike plate (@0:31) and in order to install a new strike plate, deepening the door frame cavity (@4:05) so as to accommodate an extra plate flush with the door frame (@5:15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have deepened a doorframe cavity since Thiel teaches a thicker door strike and it’s describe for the strike to be flush with the frame for visual and operational purposes, and it further would have been obvious for that depth change to be 5/16” as the depth added would correlate to the extra thickness of Thiel which would depend on its size and proportion which has been found obvious to change (See MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Claim(s) 15-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel in view of Home security upgrade.
In regards to claim 15, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Thiel teaches the method of installing an adjustable striker plate apparatus comprising an inner plate (50), a middle plate (22), an outer plate (40), and two sets of screws (56 and 32) comprising a first screw set (56) and a second screw set (32), wherein the first set comprises four screws (see fig 4) and the second screw set comprises two screws (see fig 3), wherein the inner plate comprises a central rectangular hollow gap (52), a top circular hole (one of the top 54 wrt fig 4), and a bottom hole (one of bottom 54 wrt fig 4); wherein the middle plate comprises a central rectangular hollow gap (36), a top (a top 38 wrt fig 4) and bottom hollow indentation (bottom 38 wrt fig 4, note: claim 15 has been amended such that the hollow indentations are no longer required to be a part of the central rectangular hollow gap, the indentations mapped are considered as such as a slot may be considered a further indentation of a hole), a top right hole (top right 30 wrt fig 4), a top left hole (top left 30 wrt fig 4), a bottom right hole (bottom right 30 wrt fig 4), a bottom left hole (bottom left 30 wrt fig 4), a right rectangular perpendicular protuberance (right of 36 wrt fig 4), a top perpendicular protuberance (top above 36 wrt fig 4), a left perpendicular protuberance (24), and a bottom perpendicular protuberance (below 36 wrt fig 4); wherein the outer plate comprising one central rectangular hollow gap (42), one top circular hole (a top 48 wrt fig 4), one bottom hole (a bottom 48 wrt fig 4), and one semi-circular protuberance (46), wherein the three plates are placed parallel to each other forming a central rectangular apparatus cavity by the inner plate gap, the middle plate gap, and the outer plate gap (see fig 4); and wherein the apparatus is detachably attached to a door jamb of a doorframe, and the method comprises steps of: i) positioning the door adjustment inner plate on a door jamb cavity (see fig 2), ii) the middle plate is placed over the inner plate and secured the first wood screws set, wherein the middle plate is secured non-adjustable to the door jamb over a latch and/or a deadbolt cavity (Col 1 lines 45-62 and Col 5 lines 13-22) and ,iii) the outer plate is placed and resides over the middle plate secured into the inner plate (see fig 4), with the second screw set, aligning the strike plate with the door jamb cavity (see fig 2), iv) the outer plate is placed over the middle plate and the door jamb, wherein the outer plate is sized to be slightly smaller than the door jamb cavity (see figs 2 and 4), and v) after proper alignment, the outer plate is secured by screws of the second screw set (Col 1 lines 45-62).
However, Thiel does not teach the wood screws are #6 x 1.25 screws.
Home security Upgrade teaches using longer screws on a strike plate makes a home more secure and that conventionally much smaller screws are used (@1:07).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have used longer screws in Thiel as doing so would make the strike plate more secure and #6 x 1.25” screws in particular since is it’s a screw which would be longer that would be obvious to choose (See MPEP 2141 III E).
Additionally, Thiel does not teach that the screws securing the outer plate are #6 - 32 screws.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have used #6 – 32 screws as #6 – 32 would suitable for Thiel and using them would be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (machine screws), with a reasonable expectation of success (securing the inner plate to the outer plate; see MPEP 2141 III. E).
In regards to claim 16, Thiel in view of Home security Upgrade teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the inner plate attachment to the door jamb limits the positioning of the latch or the deadbolt opening to the central rectangular apparatus- cavity (Thiel see fig 4; also, Flora fig 3).
In regards to claim 19, Thiel in view of Home security Upgrade teaches the method of claim 15, wherein before tightening #6 - 32 screws, an installer ensures proper alignment between the latch assembly and the latch opening (Thiel: Col 3 lines 19-32).
In regards to claim 20, Thiel in view of Home security Upgrade teaches the method of claim 15, where before tightening the #6 - 32 screws, an installer ensures proper alignment between the deadbolt assembly and the deadbolt opening (Thiel: Col 3 lines 19-32).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel in view of Home security Upgrade as applied to claims 15-16 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Flora.
In regards to claim 17, Thiel in view of Home security Upgrade teaches the method of claim 15 wherein the outer plate is adjustably secured over the middle plate and the inner plate (Thiel see fig 4).
However, Thiel does not teach with the second screw set consisting of only two #6-32 screws positioned at a top-middle location and a bottom-middle location of the inner plate and the outer plate, the screws passing through elongated openings in the middle plate into aligned holes of the inner plate, such that the outer plate allows vertical or horizontal adjustments over the doorjamb cavity by loosening and tightening the second screw set of only two screws.
Flora teaches a similar device with a second screw set (31, see fig 5) consisting of only two screws positioned at a top-middle location and a bottom-middle location of the inner plate (see figs 3 and 5) and the outer plate, the screws passing through elongated openings in the middle plate into aligned holes of the inner plate (see fig 3), such that the outer plate allows vertical or horizontal adjustments over the doorjamb cavity by loosening and tightening the second screw set of only two screws (see figs 3-5 and page 1 left Col lines 4-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have modified Thiel the second screw set consisting of only two #6-32 screws positioned at a top-middle location and a bottom-middle location of the inner plate and the outer plate, the screws passing through elongated openings in the middle plate into aligned holes of the inner plate in order to allow adjustment longitudinally and vertically, allowing greater accommodation of a bolt (Flora page 1 left Col lines 4-11) and to save on materials.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel in view of Non-patent Literature “Home security upgrade” as applied to claims 15-16 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Non-patent Literature “Mortise Cut Modification & Strike Plate Installation”,
In regards to claim 18, Thiel in view of home security upgrade teaches the method of claim 15.
However, Thiel does not teach wherein the door jamb cavity is deepened by 5/16" and the inner plate is positioned into the cavity.
Mortise Cut Modification & Strike Plate Installation teaches removing a poor condition strike plate (@0:31) and in order to install a new strike plate, deepening the cutout in the frame (@4:05) so as to accommodate an extra plate flush with the door frame (@5:15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have “installed into a doorframe pre-fabricated cavity” in order to replace a defective door jamb and to have increasing the depth of said cavity since Thiel teaches a thicker door strike and it’s describe for the strike to be flush with the frame for visual and operational purposes, and it further would have been obvious for that depth change to be 5/16” as the depth added would correlate to the extra thickness of Thiel which would depend on its size and proportion which has been found obvious to change (See MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
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 PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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, Christine M Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights