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 .
NOTE: This is a second Non-Final Rejection
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 16-17, 19-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1847564 to Hood in view of US 4683741 to Fields.
Regarding claim 1, Hood discloses:
A device (fig 1) for opening of a door panel (2), the device comprising: a bracket (7) mounted to a door frame (1); a rail (22) slidably mounted to the bracket that slides along the bracket in a vertical direction (up/down direction); and a latch (5) mounted on the door panel, wherein based on the door panel being in a closed position (fig 1), the latch engages and is held in place by a notch (30) in the rail (via 17, see fig 4), wherein based on the rail being slidably moved in the vertical direction, an opening (29, opening of 6) on the rail adjacent the notch aligns with and releases the latch, thereby causing the door panel to swing open toward an open position (when 5 exits 6 based on the actuation of 22, the door swings open, see at least page 1 lines 26-29).
Hood does not explicitly disclose: the latch biased towards the door frame.
However, Fields teaches that it is well known in the art for latches (42) to be biased (via 49) towards the closed position. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fields into Hood at least because doing so would provide added security by biasing the latch to the closed position.
Regarding claim 2, Hood in view of Fields discloses:
The device of claim 1 further comprising a release actuator (26) connected to the rail to slidably move the rail in the vertical direction.
Regarding claim 3, Hood in view of Fields discloses:
The device of claim 2, wherein the release actuator is one of a motion sensor or a push button (26 is a push button to be pushed via foot).
Regarding claim 5, Hood in view of Fields discloses:
The device of claim 2, wherein the release actuator includes a foot pedal (26) attached to the rail, wherein based on a user lifting up on the foot pedal (after pushing it down), the rail is slidably moved in the vertical direction (the rail slides up when 26 is lifted up).
Regarding claim 6, Hood in view of Fields discloses:
(Original) The device of claim 1, wherein the opening on the rail is below the notch (fig 4, opening of 6 is below 30).
Regarding claim 8, Hood in view of Fields discloses:
The device of claim 1, wherein the rail mounted to the bracket defines a vertical channel (25) between the rail and the bracket (fig 1).
Regarding claim 9, Hood in view of Fields discloses:
The device of claim 1, wherein the door frame includes a pilaster (front face of 1 seen in fig 1 that has 2, 3, and 7 mounted on it) and the bracket is mounted to the pilaster of the door frame (fig 1).
Regarding claim 16, Hood discloses:
A kit for retro-fit installation (fig 1) for door opening (opening of 2) on a door panel (2), the kit comprising: a bracket (7) configured to be mounted to a door frame (1) adjacent a door panel (fig 1); a rail (22) configured to be slidably mounted to the bracket and configured to slide along the bracket in a vertical direction (up/down direction), the rail including a catch assembly (6) located within the rail (via 17), the catch assembly including a notch (corner notch 30) and an opening (opening 29 of 6) aligned adjacent the notch on the rail (fig 4); a latch (5) configured to be mounted on the door panel and is configured to engage with and be held in place by the notch on the catch assembly based on the door panel being in a closed position (fig 7); and a release actuator (26) connected to the rail and configured to slidably move the rail in the vertical direction, wherein the release actuator includes a foot pedal (26) attached to a bottom portion (fig 1) of the rail and configured to slidably move the rail in the vertical direction based on a user lifting up (downwards in the y axis as seen in fig 1) on the foot pedal thereby causing the opening in the catch assembly to align with and release the bolt to allow the door panel to swing open and move toward an open position (fig 6).
Hood does not explicitly disclose the latch including a bolt biased towards the notch.
However, Fields teaches that it is well known in the art for latches (42) to be biased (via 49) towards the closed position. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fields into Hood at least because doing so would provide added security by biasing the latch to the closed position
Regarding claim 17, Hood in view of Fields discloses:
The kit of claim 16, wherein the opening on the rail is below the notch (fig 4, opening of 6 is below 30).
Regarding claim 19, Hood in view of Fields discloses:
The kit of claim 16, wherein the rail is configured to define a vertical channel (channel of 25 that 22 enters) between the rail and the bracket based on the rail being mounted to the bracket (fig 1).
Regarding claim 20, Hood in view of Fields discloses:
The kit of claim 16, wherein the door frame includes a pilaster (front face of 1 seen in fig 1 that has 2, 3, and 7 mounted on it) and the bracket is configured to be mounted to the pilaster of the door frame (fig 1).
Regarding claim 22, Hood in view of Fields discloses:
The kit of claim 16, wherein the bolt is a spring-loaded bolt (49, Fields).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 10-15, 18, 21, and 23-27 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/13/2026 with respect to anticipation have been fully considered and are persuasive. The anticipation rejection has been withdrawn and replaced with a 103 rejection.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the notch is part of the keeper and not part of the sliding rod, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 16 recites the rail to include the catch, which includes the notch as well. Hood teaches 22 which includes a catch and a notch as seen in fig 1. Claim 1 recites the notch “in the rail” and as previously explained, the rail includes the catch.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the release actuator does not slidably move the rail in the vertical direction based on a user lifting up on the foot pedal, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The user presses on the pedal to move the rail, and as the user lifts up his foot, the user lifts up the pedal and the rail slides in the vertical direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30.
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 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.
/Y.S./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights