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 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 2, 5, 12, 13 the correct phrase is “the at least one frame”
Claim 1, lines 8, 12, 13, 15 the correct phrase is “the at least one sliding panel”
Claim 1, line 14, the correct phrase is “wherein the at least one sliding panel”
Claim 2, line 2 the correct phrase is “the at least one sliding panel”
Claim 4, line 3 the correct phrase is “the at least one sliding panel”
Claim 6, lines 2 and 4, the correct phrase is “the at least one sliding panel”
Claim 7, lines 2 and 4, the correct phrase is “the at least one sliding panel”
Claim 9, line 2, the correct phrase is “the at least one sliding panel”
Claim 10, line 2, the correct phrase is “at least one of the at least one primary lower support carriage and the at least one primary upper guide carriage”
Claim 10, line 3, the correct phrase is “for locking the at least one primary lower support carriage and the at least one primary upper guide carriage”
Claim 12, line 2, the correct phrase is “wherein the at least one receiving space”
Claim 14, lines 3-4, the correct phrase is “of the hinge pin”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 12-16, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hailey (US 10,415,289).
Regarding claim 1, Hailey discloses a sliding panel system 500, comprising:
at least one frame, the at least one frame comprising:
at least one lower support rail 502; and
at least one upper guide track 510 (Fig 5);
at least one pivot panel 504, 506 (left panel) connected or connectable to the at least one frame and configured to be pivotably displaced between a closed and an opened position (Fig 5);
at least one sliding panel 504, 506 (right panel), connected or connectable to the lower support rail 502 and the upper guide track 510, (Fig 5). Examiner notes that both panels 504, 506 are configured to slide and to pivot thus the claimed limitations of at least one pivot panel and at least one sliding panel are met.
wherein the at least one sliding panel comprises:
at least one primary lower support carriage 512; and
at least one primary upper guide carriage 512 (Fig 5); which are configured to enable that the at least one sliding panel 504, 506 is displaceable along the at least one frame, and wherein at least part of the at least one sliding panel 504, 506 can be fixated with respect to the frame such that the at least one sliding panel can be pivotably displaced between a closed and an opened position (Fig 5), (Col 7, Lines 34-54);
wherein the at least one sliding panel 504, 506 comprises at least one displaceable hinge pin 620, which is displaceable between a retracted position and an extended position wherein the hinge pin 620 extends with respect to the at least one sliding panel (Fig 6, 7A, 7B); and
wherein the upper guide track 510 comprises at least one receiving space 730 for receiving at least part of the displaceable hinge pin 620 when the hinge pin is in its extended position such that the hinge pin forms at least part of the pivot axis of the sliding panel (Fig 7A-7C), (Col 8, Lines 29-67).
Regarding claim 9, Hailey discloses the at least one sliding panel comprises at least one secondary lower support carriage 514 and/or at least one secondary upper guide carriage 514 (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 10, Hailey discloses at least one of the at least one primary lower support carriage and the at least one primary upper guide carriage comprises at least one locking element 735 configured for locking the at least one of the at least one primary lower support carriage and the at least one primary upper guide carriage in a predetermined position with regard to the at least one sliding panel (Fig 7C), (Col 8, Lines 55-67).
Regarding claim 12, Hailey discloses the at least one receiving space 730 comprises at least one protective layer (Col 9, Lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 13, Hailey discloses the upper part of the hinge pin 620 has a complementary shape to the inner surface of the receiving space 730 (Fig 6, 7C).
Regarding claim 14, Hailey discloses the upper guide track 510 comprises a plurality of receiving spaces (along exterior edges 505), wherein each receiving space is configured for receiving at least part of the hinge pin 620 (Fig 5, 7C).
Regarding claim 15, Hailey discloses the upper guide track 510 is a single track and/or wherein the lower support rail 502 is a single rail (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 16, Hailey discloses the primary upper guide carriage 512 encloses at least part of the hinge pin 620 at least in the extended position (Fig 7B, 7C).
Regarding claim 19, Hailey discloses the at least one sliding panel comprises at least one handle 626 configured for displacing the hinge pin 620 between the retracted position and the extended position (Fig 5, 6).
Regarding claim 20, Hailey discloses the at least one sliding panel comprises at least one espagnolette 508, wherein an upper transmission rod 624 of the at least one espagnolette 508 is at least coupled with the hinge pin 620 and a lower transmission rod 624 (Fig 6), wherein a lower transmission rod 624 of the at least one espagnolette 508 is coupled with a secondary lower support carriage 514 such that activating of the at least one espagnolette causes displacement of the hinge pin 620 and preferably displacement and/or fixation of the secondary lower support carriage 514 in a predetermined position.
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) 2-6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hailey (US 10,415,289) in view of Vander Bent Jr. (US 11,098,511).
Regarding claim 2, Hailey discloses as discussed in claim 1, but does not disclose at least one lower stop configured for engagement of at least part of the at least one sliding panel. However, Vander Bent Jr. discloses a sliding panel system including at least one lower stop 180, (Fig 4A). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sliding panel system of Hailey to include at least one lower stop as taught by Vander Bent Jr, in order to limit the movement of at least one sliding panel. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Vander Bent Jr further discloses at least part of the lower stop 180 is positioned inside the lower support rail 155 such that the lower support rail substantially encloses the lower stop (Fig 4A).
Regarding claim 4, Vander Bent Jr further discloses at least one upper stop 180 configured for engagement of at least part of the at least one sliding panel, (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 5, Vander Bent Jr further discloses at least part of the upper stop 180 is positioned inside the upper guide track 150 such that the upper guide track substantially encloses the upper stop (Fig 6)
Regarding claim 6, Hailey discloses as discussed in claim 1, but does not disclose at least one lower stop configured for engagement of at least part of the at least one sliding panel; and at least one upper stop configured for engagement of at least part of the at least one sliding panel; wherein the lower stop and the upper stop are positioned such that the at least one sliding panel which is displaced along a longitudinal direction of the frame will first engage a lower contact surface of the lower stop. However, Vander Bent Jr. discloses a sliding panel system including at least one lower stop 180 and at least one upper stop, wherein the lower stop 180 and the upper stop 180 are positioned such that the at least one sliding panel which is displaced along a longitudinal direction of the frame will engage a lower contact surface 182 of the lower stop (Fig 4A). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sliding panel system of Hailey to include at least one lower stop and an upper stop as taught by Vander Bent Jr, in order to limit the movement of at least one sliding panel. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been an obvious engineering design to have the at least one sliding panel to first engage the lower contact surface of the lower stop prior to contacting an upper contact surface of the upper stop according to the desired performance of the sliding panel while sliding along the lower support rail.
9. Claim(s) 11, 17, 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hailey (US 10,415,289).
Regarding claim 11, Hailey discloses as discussed in claim 1, but does not disclose the hinge pin is a spring loaded hinge pin. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a spring loaded hinge pin in place of the hinge pin because these are equivalent elements both capably serve to provide a hinge, and the selection of known equivalents to hinges would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was made.
Regarding claim 17, Hailey discloses the primary upper guide carriage 512 comprises at least one blocking element 734 which is configured to be displaced between at least an extended position wherein the blocking element substantially limits displacement of the hinge pin 620 towards its extended position and a retracted position wherein the blocking element 734 provides an access opening for the hinge pin 620 (Fig 7C), (Col 8, Lines 55-67).
Hailey does not disclose the blocking element being resilient. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a resilient blocking element, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice in order to provide a blocking element that would withstand repeated loading and prevent fatigue failure.
Regarding claim 18, Hailey discloses the at least one sliding panel, wherein each of the at least one sliding panel is connected or connectable to the lower support rail 502 and the upper guide track 510, wherein each of the at least one sliding panel comprises:
at least one primary lower support carriage 512; and
at least one primary upper guide carriage 512 (Fig 5);
such that the at least one sliding panel is displaceable and wherein the at least one sliding panel is configured to be pivotably displaceable between a closed and an opened position (Fig 5).
Hailey does not disclose multiple sliding panels. However, it would have been an obvious engineering design to have multiple sliding panels according to the dimensions of the area to cover and the desired appearance.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 7 and 8 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.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-8281. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5PM 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, 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.
/ADRIANA FIGUEROA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
12/06/2025