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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 Nov. 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High Heel Doorstopper, Funslurp.com, 29 March, 2016 https://web.archive.org/web/20160329061048/http://www.funslurp.com/high-heel-door-stopper [hereinafter: Funslurp.com], in view of Bishop, 11,459,806 B1, Depue, US 804,585 A, and Yates, US 2008/0224484 A1.
Claim 1: Funslurp.com discloses a doorstopper device adapted to be inserted between a lower edge of a door and a floor surface (shown in image annotated below), the doorstopper device comprising: a base component, wherein the base component is configured to resemble a shoe (shown in image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
291
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Funslurp.com is silent to the base component configured in particular to resemble as a Mary Jane shoe. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door stopper device to resemble a Mary Jane shoe as an obvious matter of design choice to provide desired aesthetics. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the addition of a buckle strap results in a Mary Jane shoe and does not affect operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (holding that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.); In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (The court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
Funslurp.com does not explicitly disclose the base component is a stainless steel base. Bishop teaches a doorstopper device comprising a base component (20) is a stainless steel base (col. 4 ln. 8-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base component disclosed by Funslurp.com to be a stainless steel base, as taught by Bishop, in order to use the doorstop in an outdoor environment and improve durability (Bishop col. 4 ln. 5-10).
Funslurp.com, in view of Bishop, is silent to a sole component. Depue teaches a doorstopper device comprising a base component (1) and a sole component (5) secured to the base component (p. 1 ln. 46-50). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the doorstopper device taught by Funslurp.com, in view of Bishop, to include a sole component secured to the base component, as taught by Depue, to provide a higher friction force and keep the doorstopper device in place under the door (Depue p. 1 ln. 58-61 and p. 1 ln. 111-p. 2 ln. 2).
Funslurp.com, in view of Bishop and Depue, does not explicitly teach how the sole component is attached to the base component. However, it is known in the art to attach two components by ultrasonic welding, as evidenced by Yates. Yates teaches a component (50) thermally welded to a base component (30; [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the door stopper device taught by Funslurp.com, in view of Bishop and Depue, to configure the sole component to be ultrasonically welded to the base component, as suggested by Yates, in order to permanently attach the sole component with the base component and form a single integral piece.
Claim 2: Funslurp.com, in view of Bishop, Depue, and Yates, teaches the doorstopper device of claim 1, wherein the base component comprises a bottom and a pair of opposing side walls which form sides of the shoe (shown in image annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
336
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: Funslurp.com, in view of Bishop, Depue, and Yates, teaches the doorstopper device of claim 2, wherein the base component comprises a back wall which forms a heel portion of the shoe and a front wall which forms a toe portion of the shoe (Funslurp.com image annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
412
519
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 4: Funslurp.com, in view of Bishop, Depue, and Yates, teaches the doorstopper device of claim 3, but does not explicitly teach the back wall, the pair of opposing side walls, and the front wall come together to form a circular opening at a top of the doorstopper device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the back wall, the pair of opposing side walls, and the front wall taught by Funslurp.com, in view of Bishop, Depue, and Yates, to come together to form a circular opening at a top of the doorstopper device as an obvious matter of design choice to make the base component appear more like a realistic wearable shoe, which has a circular opening at a top for a leg. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (Claim was directed to an advertising display device comprising a bottle and a hollow member in the shape of a human figure from the waist up which was adapted to fit over and cover the neck of the bottle, wherein the hollow member and the bottle together give the impression of a human body. Appellant argued that certain limitations in the upper part of the body, including the arrangement of the arms, were not taught by the prior art. The court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
Claim 5: Funslurp.com, in view of Bishop, Depue, and Yates, teaches the door stopper device of claim 4, wherein the front wall and the pair of opposing side walls near the toe portion of the shoe are inclined, such that they gradually increase inclination from the bottom to the top of the shoe (Funslurp.com images above depict the walls of the shoe shape are inclined starting from the bottom of the toe portion toward the top of the shoe).
Claim 6: Funslurp.com, in view of Bishop, Depue, and Yates, teaches doorstopper device of claim 5. Funslurp.com further discloses the gradual inclination allows the doorstopper device to be inserted under and to engage the lower edge of the door (depicted in Funslurp.com image, reproduced below).
PNG
media_image4.png
324
588
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funslurp.com, in view of Bishop, Depue, and Yates, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Dunbar, US 1,813,235 A.
Claim 8: Funslurp.com, in view of Bishop, Depue, and Yates, teaches doorstopper device of claim 1, wherein the sole component comprises a rubber, non-slip material for contacting the floor surface (Depue p. 1 ln. 46). However, Funslurp.com, in view of Bishop, Depue, and Yates is silent to vulcanized rubber in particular.
A vulcanized rubber, non-slip material for contacting a floor surface is well known in the art, as evidenced by Dunbar. Dunbar teaches a sole component comprises a vulcanized rubber, non-slip material (p. 1, ln. 32-36). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a vulcanized rubber, non-slip material, as taught by Dunbar, for the sole component taught by Funslurp.com, in view of Bishop, Depue, and Yates, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve wearing qualities (Dunbar p. 2 ln. 18-23).
Claim 9: Funslurp.com, in view of Bishop, Depue, Yates, and Dunbar, teaches doorstopper device of claim 8, wherein the vulcanized rubber, non-slip material comprises a plurality of lateral corrugations that form teeth (Depue Figs. 1-2).
Claim 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funslurp.com, in view of Sasgen, US 2,217,996 A, and Nakamura et al., US 2022/0015499 A1.
Claim 14: Funslurp.com discloses a doorstopper device adapted to be inserted between a lower edge of a door and a floor surface (shown in images), the doorstopper device comprising:
a base component configured to resemble a shoe (shown below);
PNG
media_image5.png
343
592
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the base component comprises a bottom wall and a pair of opposing side walls which form sides of the shoe (image annotated above);
wherein the base component comprises a back wall which forms a heel portion of the shoe (image annotated above) and a front wall which forms a toe portion of the shoe (image annotated above);
wherein the bottom wall is generally flat (image above depicts the bottom is generally flat to engage the floor) and extends an entire length of the doorstopper device and constitutes a bottom of the doorstopper device (image above shows a bottom that extends an entire length of the device and constitutes a bottom); and
wherein a top of the doorstopper device comprising the front wall forms a wedge-shaped surface extending from a toe portion to the heel portion, which allows the doorstopper device to engage the lower edge of the door and allows the doorstopper device to be inserted under the door (image annotated above depicts the front wall of the doorstopper device has a wedge shape to be positioned between the door and the floor).
Funslurp.com is silent to the base component being configured as an athletic shoe. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door stopper device to be configured as an athletic shoe with a reasonable expectation of success as an obvious matter of design choice to provide desired aesthetics. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the change in shape would not affect operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (holding that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.); In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (The court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
Nakamura teaches a known athletic shoe comprising a back wall which forms a heel portion of the shoe and a front wall which forms a toe and a tongue portion of the shoe (depicted in Fig. 1). One skilled in the art would recognize the resulting device taught by Funslurp.com, modified to be configured as an athletic shoe, includes a base component with a front wall that forms a toe and tongue portion in order to resemble an athletic shoe, as taught by Nakamura.
Funslurp.com is silent to a sole component bolted to the base component on one side to keep the door stopper device in place under the lower edge of the door. However, it is well known in the art to provide a sole component bolted to a base component of a doorstopper device to keep the doorstopper device in place. Sasgen teaches a doorstopper device comprising a base component (11) and a sole component (16) bolted to the base component on one side (Figs. 3-4 depict the sole component bolted on the top side) to keep the doorstopper device in place; wherein the sole component comprises a plurality of lateral corrugations (37) on an opposite side of the sole component to the bolted side (p. 2, left lines 10-12).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the doorstopper device taught by Funslurp.com, in view of Nakamura, to further include a sole component bolted to the base component wherein the sole component comprises a plurality of lateral corrugations on an opposite side of the sole component to the bolted side, as taught by Sasgen, in order to create more friction and prevent slipping (Sasgen p. 2, left lines 11-12). As a result, doorstopper device is kept in place under the lower edge of the door.
Funslurp.com, in view of Nakamura and Sasgen, teaches a door stopper that resembles an athletic shoe, but is silent to the base component further comprising a cloth top layer comprising at least one accessory component. It is known in the art that an athletic shoe has a cloth top layer comprising at least one accessory component, such as decorative features or shoe laces; Nakamura illustrates a real, wearable shoe comprising a cloth layer with at least one accessory component in Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base component taught by Funslurp.com, in view of Nakamura and Sasgen, to include a cloth top layer comprising at least one accessory component, with a reasonable expectation of success, as an obvious matter of design choice to make the base component appear more like a realistic, wearable athletic shoe, as shown by Nakamura. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (finding matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art).
Claim 15: Funslurp.com, in view of Nakamura and Sasgen, teaches the doorstopper device of claim 14, wherein the sole component comprises a vulcanized rubber, non-slip material for contacting the floor surface (Sasgen p. 1 right lines 1-2, p. 2 left lines 13-17).
Claim 16: Funslurp.com, in view of Nakamura and Sasgen, teaches the doorstopper device of claim 14. Funslurp.com, in view of Nakamura and Sasgen, does not explicitly teach the base component and the sole component are manufactured of the same material. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the base component and the sole component of the same material in order to simplify production with one piece construction as a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.").
Claim 19: Funslurp.com, in view of Nakamura and Sasgen, teaches the doorstopper device of claim 14. Funslurp.com further teaches the doorstopper device comprising indicia (Funslurp.com images depict an advertising label, corresponding to indicia). Funslurp.com, in view of Nakamura and Sasgen, is silent to a plurality of indicia.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide additional indicia on the doorstopper device taught by Funslurp.com, in view of Nakamura and Sasgen, to ensure that advertising that is visible from multiple view points and as a matter of design choice to provide desired aesthetics. See MPEP 2144.04(I); see also In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (Claim was directed to an advertising display device comprising a bottle and a hollow member in the shape of a human figure from the waist up which was adapted to fit over and cover the neck of the bottle, wherein the hollow member and the bottle together give the impression of a human body. Appellant argued that certain limitations in the upper part of the body, including the arrangement of the arms, were not taught by the prior art. The court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 14-16, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Packer (US 9074396 B2) teaches a decorative doorstop comprising a base component with a cloth top layer comprising at least one accessory component to resemble an animal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675