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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-9 are objected to because, at line 1, “An elongated plate” should be --The elongated plate--.
Claims 12-14 are objected to because, at line 1, “A method” should be --The method--.
Claim 16 is objected to because “A door” should be --The door--, as the door recited in the claim is not just any door, it is the specific, single door of independent claim, such door modified as recited in claim 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/23/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. In this case, the information disclosure statement fails to comply because the list of patents submitted for consideration are for another application, the number of such other application being submitted on the current IDS. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 10-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claims recite a plate outer surface that is substantially free of horizontal ridges and grooves. Not only do the drawings and written specification not disclose the plate outer surface substantially free of horizontal ridges and grooves, fig. 1 shows “engraved symbols (e.g. footprints 54)”, para 18. Engraving a symbol with an engraving tool essentially creates plate outer surface horizontal ridges and grooves.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 15 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (2018/0012477) in view of Best (3,582,584) and Jacobsen (10,455,955).
1. Lewis, figs. 1 and 3, teaches an elongated protector plate 10 for mounting on a door surface to protect the door surface from being marred by an animal (“scratching on the door, door jam, or an adjacent wall will cause damage”, para. 4), said door surface extending between a top edge and a bottom edge opposite said top edge and between a hinge side edge (the right side) and a strike side edge (the left edge) opposite said hinge side edge, said door surface having a strike side margin (the door surface adjacent the door strike side) extending partially across the door surface from the strike side edge toward the hinge side edge, said elongated plate protector comprising:
a sheet, fig. 3, para. 16, having an attachment (back) face adapted to face the door surface when the protector plate is mounted on the door surface, said sheet having an exposed (front) face opposite said attachment face, said exposed face having an upper edge, a lower edge opposite the upper edge, an inner (right) edge extending between the upper edge and the lower edge, and an outer (left) edge opposite said inner edge, said outer edge being positioned closer to the strike side edge of the door surface than the inner edge when the protector plate is mounted on the door surface (as seen in fig. 1, the outer edge is closer to the strike side edge of the door surface than the inner edge when the plate is on the door, and in any case, the door is not positively recited, and as such, the outer edge is capable of being closer to the strike side edge of the door surface than the inner edge when the plate is on the door) with the attachment face facing the door surface and the upper edge positioned closer to the top edge of the door surface than the lower edge (fig. 1), said exposed face having a height extending from the upper edge to the lower edge and a width shorter than said height extending from the inner edge to the outer edge, said sheet having an inner rounded corner where the upper edge meets the inner edge and an outer rounded corner where the upper edge meets the outer edge (all four corners are rounded, fig. 3), said sheet having an inner lower corner where the lower edge meets the inner edge and an outer lower corner where the lower edge meets the outer edge.
Lewis does not expressly teach the rounded corners have a radius measuring greater than ¼ inch and the upper edge, the lower edge, the inner edge, and the outer edge each have an edge treatment blunting the corresponding edge. Best teaches blunting edges (“plate 361 with beveled edges 362, col. 9, lines 54-57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the upper edge, the lower edge, the inner edge, and the outer edge to ach have an edge treatment blunting the corresponding edge to avoid sharp edges. Jacobsen teaches it is old in the art for the corners of a rectangular aluminum plate mounted on an outdoor vertical building structure surface to each have a radius greater than ¼ inch, col. 11, lines 53-66. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Lewis to have a generous, snag-avoiding, radius measuring greater than ¼ inch.
2-3. Lewis in view of Best and Jacobsen teaches the elongated protector plate as set forth in claim 1, Best further teaching the edge treatment is a beveled edge.
5. Lewis in view of Best and Jacobsen teaches the elongated protector plate as set forth in claim 1, Lewis further comprising an adhesive applied to the attachment face of the sheet, para. 17.
9. Lewis in view of Best and Jacobsen teaches the elongated protector plate as set forth in claim 1, Lewis further teaching the plate in combination with the door (fig. 1 shows to plate on the door).
15. Lewis in view of Best and Jacobsen teaches the elongated protector plate as set forth in claim 1, Lewis further teaching the width (the horizontal distance between the long vertical edges) of the exposed face of the sheet is shorter than the height (the vertical distance between the short horizontal edges) of the exposed face of the sheet.
Claim 4 - is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of Best and Jacobsen and in further view of Norlander (5,074,092).
4. Lewis does not expressly teach the plate width is less than seven inches. Norlander, fig. 6, teaches that a door stile capable having an elongated protector plate secured thereon is less than seven inches (“stile is 4-7/8 inches (123.8 mm) wide”, col. 4, lines 50-52), Applicant teaching the plate is essentially the same width as a door stile, fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the Lewis plate width to be less than seven inches (to be about 4-7/8 inches so the plate can be secured on the door stile) for a convenient location for the dog to scratch.
Claims 6-7 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of Best and Jacobsen and in further view of Goodman (3,415,475).
6-7. Lewis in view of Best teaches an elongated protector plate as set forth in claim 1, Lewis further teaching the sheet comprises metal, para. 16, but the sheet is not expressly taught as comprising anodized aluminum metal. Goodman teaches a plate comprises anodized aluminum (“plate 48 formed of anodized aluminum”, col. 3, lines 54-57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sheet to comprise anodized aluminum for an attractive, durable finish.
Claim 8 - is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of Best and Jacobsen and in further view of Paardecamp (2,536,460).
8. Lewis does not teach the exposed face includes indicia thereon. Paardecamp teaches an exposed face includes indicia thereon (“At the top of the plate, there may be, if desired, a medallion 14 showing a dog's head, for example, col. 2, lines 14-15). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the exposed face to include indicia thereon for a product more attractive to dog owners.
Claim 10 - is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paardecamp in view of Dyer (5,123,307).
10. Paardecamp, figs. 1-2, teaches a door 15 adapted for mounting in a doorway, said door comprising:
a first face (the front, exposed face) extending between a top edge and a bottom edge opposite said top edge and between a hinge (right) side edge and a strike (left) side edge opposite said hinge side edge, said first face having a strike side margin (the area at the left door stile) extending partially across the first face from the strike side edge toward the hinge side edge, fig. 1;
a second (back) face opposite said first face; and
an elongated protector plate 10 mounted on the strike side margin of the first face of the door, said protector plate having a height extending from an upper edge to a lower edge opposite said upper edge and a width shorter than said height extending from an inner edge and an outer edge opposite said inner edge, said outer edge being closer to the strike side edge of the first face than to the inner side edge, fig. 2; wherein the outer edge of the elongated protector plate extends parallel to the strike side edge of the first face of the door, fig. 1, and the inner edge of the elongated protector plate extends parallel to the outer edge, and an outer surface (the uppermost, narrow horizontal smooth surface, fig. 2, is “an” outer surface of the plate ) facing away from the first face of the door and extending between the upper edge and the lower edge and between the inner edge and the outer edge that is substantially free of horizontal ridges and grooves.
Paardecamp does not expressly teach the upper edge of the elongated protector plate is less than 34 inches above the bottom edge of the of the first face of the door.
Dyer teaches a standard doorknob hardware height is more than 34 inches (“a standard doorknob hardware height, such as forty, forty-four or fifty-six inches”, col. 2, lines 28-30), Paardecamp teaching the plate is below the doorknob, fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the upper edge of the elongated protector plate to be less than 34 inches above the bottom edge of the of the first face of the door to situate the plate at the level of the average dog, below the knob.
Claim 16 - is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paardecamp in view of Dyer and in further view of Norlander (5,074,092).
16. Paardecamp in view of Dyer teaches the door as set forth in claim 10, Paardecamp further teaching the width of the protector plate is less than the height but does not expressly teach the width is less than six inches. Norlander, fig. 6, teaches that a door stile is less than six inches (“stile is 4-7/8 inches (123.8 mm) wide”, col. 4, lines 50-52). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the Paardecamp plate width (the Paardecamp plate mounted on, and having about the same width, as the door stile, fig. 1) to be less than six inches (to be 4-7/8 inches) so the plate fits on a “common door stile”, col. 5, line 50.
Claims 11-14 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paardecamp in view of Dyer, Bennett (2017/0151655), and Jacobsen.
11. Paardecamp teaches a method of protecting a door 15 having a door surface extending between a top edge and a bottom edge opposite said top edge and between a hinge side edge and a strike side edge opposite said hinge side edge, said door surface having a strike side margin extending partially across the first face from the strike side edge toward the hinge side edge, fig. 1, said method comprising the steps of:
obtaining an elongated protector plate 10 having a height extending from an upper edge to a lower edge opposite said upper edge and a width shorter than said height extending from an inner edge and an outer edge opposite said inner edge, figs. 1-2; orienting the protector plate so the upper edge is positioned above the lower edge and the attachment surface faces the door surface, figs. 1-2; positioning the oriented protector plate on the door and attaching (via screws 16) the positioned protector plate to the door.
Paardecamp does not expressly teach positioning the oriented protector plate so the outer edge is, as best understood, less than one inch from the strike side edge and the upper edge of the protector plate is less than 34 inches above the bottom edge of the door.
Paardecamp appears to show the outer edge is less than one inch from the strike side edge (the edge is shown as essentially flush with the edge), but the written disclosure does not expressly teach the outer edge is less than one inch from the strike side edge. Bennet teaches a plate outer edge is “approximately” one inch from a strike side edge (“the plate's side edges 16 normally distanced approximately one inch from the door's side edges 18”, para. 35), therefore the Bennet plate outer edge is around one inch from a strike side edge. As such, the edge is a little more or a little “less than” one inch. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the outer edge to be less than one inch from the strike side to provide as much scratch protection as possible at the edge. Dyer teaches a standard doorknob hardware height is more than 34 inches (“a standard doorknob hardware height, such as forty, forty-four or fifty-six inches”, col. 2, lines 28-30), Paardecamp teaching the plate is below the doorknob, fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the upper edge of the elongated protector plate to be less than 34 inches above the bottom edge of the of the first face of the door to situate the plate at the level of the average dog, below the knob.
Finally, Paardecamp teaches an inner corner where the upper edge meets the inner edge and an outer corner where the upper edge meets the outer edge (the plate corners) , an attachment surface extending between the upper edge and the lower edge and between the inner edge and the outer edge; and an outer surface (the uppermost, narrow horizontal smooth surface, fig. 2, is “an outer surface” of the plate) facing opposite the attachment surface extending between the upper edge and the lower edge and between the inner edge and the outer edge that is substantially free of horizontal ridges and grooves. Paardecamp does not teach the corners are a radius greater than ¼”. Jacobsen teaches it is old in the art for the corners of a rectangular aluminum plate mounted on an outdoor vertical building structure surface to each have a radius greater than ¼ inch, col. 11, lines 53-66. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Lewis to have a generous, snag-avoiding, radius measuring greater than ¼ inch.
12. Paardecamp in view of Dyer, Bennett, and Jacobsen teaches the method as set forth in claim 11, Paardecamp further teaching the step of positioning the upper edge below a knob, fig. 1.
13. Paardecamp in view of Dyer, Bennett, and Jacobsen teaches the method as set forth in claim 11, Bennet, fig. 1 further teaching a door 14 kickplate 10 positioned adjacent to a bottom edge of the door and extending across the door surface between a hinge side edge and a strike side edge, and Bennet also teaches positioning a protector plate (fig. 1 shows a rectangular protector plate surrounding the knob) includes the step of positioning the plate lower edge above the kickplate (fig. 1 shows the protector plate above the kickplate). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Paardecamp to have a kickplate positioned adjacent to a bottom edge of the door and extending across the door surface between a hinge side edge and a strike side edge as taught by Bennett, and to position the Paardecamp protector plate lower edge above the kickplate (just as the Bennet protector plate lower edge is above the kickplate) to maximize dog scratch door damage along this critical location.
14. Paardecamp in view of Dyer, Bennett, and Jacobsen teaches the method as set forth in claim 11, Paardecamp further teaching the door has a knob, and Bennet further teaching a door has a kickplate 10 positioned adjacent to a bottom edge of the door and extending across the door surface between a hinge side edge and a strike side edge; and the step of positioning a protector plate (fig. 1 shows a rectangular protector plate surrounding the knob) includes the step of positioning the plate lower edge above the kickplate (fig. 1 shows the protector plate above the kickplate). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Paardecamp to have a kickplate positioned adjacent to a bottom edge of the door and extending across the door surface between a hinge side edge and a strike side edge as taught by Bennett, and to position the Paardecamp protector plate lower edge above the kickplate (just as the Bennet protector plate lower edge is above the kickplate) to maximize dog scratch door damage along this critical location.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that the claim objection is improper and must be withdrawn because “the M.P.E.P. § 806.01(n) provides examples in which dependent claims begin with an indefinite article”, it is assumed the actual section is 608.01(n), which covers multiple dependent claims. A multiple dependent claim begins with “A” because multiple dependent claims refer to more than one previously set forth claim.
Regarding the argument that “it appears Lewis's corners have radii about equal to the diameter of its fastener holes. If Lewis had one-quarter-inch fastener holes and fasteners, they would be comically large”, as clearly shown in fig. 3, the screw hole diameter is much smaller than the corner radius.
Regarding the argument that “the Office should be able to cite prior art disclosing” that it is old in the art for the corners of a rectangular aluminum plate mounted on an outdoor vertical building structure surface to each have a radius greater than ¼ inch, the present rejection relies on secondary reference, Jacobsen, for such teaching.
Regarding the argument that there is a significant purpose for the claimed radius of greater than ¼ inch, the section cited merely points out that rounded corners protect the pet. While rounded corners in general may offer a degree of protection, no disclosure is made of how the specific radius of greater than ¼ inch (as opposed to, for example, a smaller radius) provides enhanced pet protection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633