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 Amendment
The following office action is in response to the amendment filed on January 21, 2026. Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-17 are pending. In light of newly discovered prior art, the indication of allowable subject matter in the previous office action is hereby withdrawn. The new ground of rejection is presented in the following office action. Therefore, the following office action is non-final.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-13, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-16 of copending Application No. 18/993,328 in view of Niemioja (2022/0080707) OR Malm (2192196). ‘328 discloses a revolving door having comprising curved inner and outer glass elements, a ceiling structure made of sandwich configuration that rests on the inner and outer glass elements, a turnstile, and a support structure. ‘328 does not specifically disclose that the inner and outer glass elements are bonded together with at least one film. Niemioja and Malm both teach that it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to adhere two glass sheets together with a plastic layer in between to reinforce the glass panels. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use plastic reinforced glass with an inner and out layer for Rockenbach’s glass panels, because plastic reinforced glass is well-known in the glass art. It is used for its strength and for the fact that if it does break, it does not shatter into many sharp shards that could injure a person. These things are well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art and are also taught by Niemioja and Malm.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-16 of copending Application No. 18/993,328 in view of Niemioja (2022/0080707) OR Malm (2192196) and further in view of Goppion (EP 2979588).
In regard to claim 3, ‘328 in view of Niemioja (2022/0080707) OR Malm (2192196) disclose the basic claimed invention, except for the inner glass being shorter than the outer glass element by 20% to 100% of the height of the ceiling assembly. Goppion teaches that it is known to have a wall made up of an inner glass sheet adhered to an outer glass sheet, wherein the inner glass sheet is shorter than the outer glass sheet by 100% of the ceiling width as shown in figures 2 and 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the inner sheet of Rockenbach shorter than the outer sheet so that the ceiling and profile elements have a ledge to rest upon. Further, by making the ceiling flush with the top of the wall, the structure will be better supported and form a stronger joint between the wall and the ceiling.
Claims 8, 16, and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-16 of copending Application No. 18/993,328 in view of Niemioja (2022/0080707) OR Malm (2192196) and further in view of Rockenbach (6266922).
In regard to claims 8, 16, and 17, ‘328 in view of Niemioja (2022/0080707) OR Malm (2192196) disclose the basic claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing a T or L shaped profile element as claimed. Rockenbach teaches that it is known to provide ceilings of revolving doors with T or L shaped profile elements for resting on walls and supporting ceiling assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to support the ceiling of ‘328 with a T or L shaped profile because by doing so, the ceiling will be securely mounted to the wall elements.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting 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, 4, 6, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockenbach (6266922) in view of Niemioja (2022/0080707) OR Malm (2192196).
In regard to claims 1 and 4, Rockenbach discloses a revolving door 1 with a turnstile which is arranged between opposing barrel elements 2 and with a ceiling assembly 7 which is arranged on top of the barrel elements and on which the turnstile is rotatably mounted, wherein the barrel elements are each glass (col. 5, lines 29-32), wherein the ceiling assembly is directly or indirectly on a top finishing surface of the glass (figs. 5, 6, 10, 11). Rockenbach does not specifically disclose that the glass of the barrel elements comprises inner glass element and an outer glass element bonded to each other, wherein the inner glass element and the outer glass element are bonded to one another by means of at least one plastic film. Niemioja and Malm both teach that it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to adhere two glass sheets together with a plastic layer in between to reinforce the glass panels. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use plastic reinforced glass with an inner and out layer for Rockenbach’s glass panels, because plastic reinforced glass is well-known in the glass art. It is used for its strength and for the fact that if it does break, it does not shatter into many sharp shards that could injure a person. These things are well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art and are also taught by Niemioja and Malm.
In regard to claim 6, Rockenbach (6266922) in view of Niemioja (2022/0080707) OR Malm (2192196) disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein at least one profile element 11, 19 is provided, which rests on the top finishing surface of the inner glass element and/or the top finishing surface of the outer glass element, whereing the ceiling assembly is accommodated in or on the profile element. Ceiling panels 16 and 17 are in and on the profile elements 11 and 19.
In regard to claim 10, Rockenbach (6266922) in view of Niemioja (2022/0080707) OR Malm (2192196) disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein at least one support profile 3 or 22 is configured on the outside of the barrel elements and has a supporting connection with the ceiling assembly.
In regard to claim 11, Rockenbach (6266922) in view of Niemioja (2022/0080707) OR Malm (2192196) disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the ceiling assembly has a sandwich design with a bottom cover panel 17, a filler 11, 13, and a top cover panel 16.
In regard to claim 12, Rockenbach (6266922) in view of Niemioja (2022/0080707) OR Malm (2192196) disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the ceiling assembly forms an assembly configured to be handled individually and configured to be attached to the barrel elements and/or the turnstile, and configured to be detached from the barrel elements and/or the turnstile. Once it is assembled, it is an assembly and can be attached or detached from the other elements of the revolving door.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 7-9, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockenbach (6266922) in view of Niemioja (2022/0080707) OR Malm (2192196) and further in view of Goppion (EP2979588).
In regard to claims 2, 3, and 7-9 Rockenbach (6266922) in view of Niemioja (2022/0080707) OR Malm (2192196) disclose the basic claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing that the inner glass element has a shorter vertical length than the outer glass element such that the outer glass element encloses the ceiling assembly at least partially or entirely on the outside, or that the vertical length of the inner glass element is shorter than the vertical length of the outer glass element by at least 20% to 100% of the height dimension of the ceiling assembly. Goppion teaches a glass showcase having a ceiling and a wall. Although Goppion is a showcase and Rockenbach is a glass enclosed revolving door, they are analogous structures because they are essentially glass enclosed objects. Goppion further teaches that it is known to have a wall made up of an inner glass sheet adhered to an outer glass sheet, wherein the inner glass sheet is shorter than the outer glass sheet by 100% of the ceiling width as shown in figures 2 and 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the inner sheet of Rockenbach shorter than the outer sheet so that the ceiling and profile elements have a ledge to rest upon. Further, by making the ceiling flush with the top of the wall, the structure will be better supported and form a stronger joint between the wall and the ceiling. Finally, the profile elements of Rockenbach are T-shaped (19) and element 11 has a lower half that is L-shaped. Again, once modified by Goppion, the profile elements will be adhered to the inner and outer glass elements as claimed. The adhesive taught by Goppion will also act as a coating on the upper sections of the inner and out glass elements.
In regard to claims 13 and 15-17 Rockenbach (6266922) in view of Niemioja (2022/0080707) OR Malm (2192196) and Goppion disclose the basic claimed method for assembling a revolving door and revolving door. The method steps and revolving door limitations can obviously be seen and described in the above rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-12. They are rejected in the same manner as set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights