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 3-4, 7-8, 10, and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3-4 begin the claim with “the door knob grip”. The claims should recite “the door stopping device of claim 1/2 further comprising a door knob grip, wherein the grip comprises”. All claims must begin reciting the door stopping device. Claims 7-8, 10, and 12-13 also do not begin with reciting the door stopping device.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “all necessary components”. It is unclear what these components are, or what is deemed necessary.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the device’s own handle" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “similar flexible material” rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the limitations of the claim are.
Claim 3 recites “preferably” rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the limitations of the claim are.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the raised position" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 4-5, and 8-13 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
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) 1-2, and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200040624 to Workman.
Regarding claim 1, Workman discloses:
A door mounted door stopping device (fig 1) for halting motion of a swinging or sliding door (12), comprising a door knob grip (25); an extending and retractable appendage (18); a position maintaining mechanism (50/52) for position regulation of the extending appendage; a flexible and durable means of connection (30) between the door knob grip and extending appendage or position maintaining mechanism; a hollow or semi hollow body (14) possessing brackets (top and bottom bracket seen in fig 3) and walls for housing of all necessary components (fig 1); a high friction non-marking tip (46) at the bottom most extremity of the extending appendage, being actuated via the knob (46 is configured to move when 30 is lifted) or via the device’s own handle.
Regarding claim 2, Workman discloses:
The door stopping device of claim 1 further comprising a flexible door knob grip (25, fig 1).
Regarding claim 5, Workman discloses:
The door stopping device of claim 1 further comprising an extending appendage being rod like and cylindrical or squared (fig 1) and in one iteration possessing a handle for activation and deactivation.
Regarding claim 6, Workman discloses:
The door stopping device of claim 5 possessing a means of connection between the door knob grip and the extending appendage (30) such as a chord or wire or such like tether.
Regarding claim 7, Workman discloses:
The extending appendage of claim 5 further comprising a position maintaining mechanism (50/52) similar to such like mechanism found in a mechanical retractable click pen or being of a groove type guide allowing for the extending appendage to move in a series of sequential steps along a predetermined path (openings 52 provide steps that are predetermined) and being in communication with the extending appendage for lifting and holding the raised position or lowering and maintaining lowered position of the extending appendage (figs 2 and 2A).
Regarding claim 8, Workman discloses:
The extending appendage of claim 7 wherein the bottom most extremity possesses a length adjustable high friction tip (the length of 46 is adjustable in any direction needed for positioning) .
Regarding claim 9, Workman discloses:
The door stopping device of claim 1 further comprising a semi circular body with one flat rearward wall and a curved or arched forward wall, or two flat forward angled walls comprising a triangular composition, or one forward wall and two side walls compromising a square like composition (16), with all iterations possessing a singular flat rearward wall (fig 2).
Regarding claim 10, Workman discloses:
The semi circular or triangular or square body of claim 9 being hollow (16 is hollow to accommodate 18), possessing a semicircular half of the retaining brackets on each wall (fig 2) and wherein the rearward wall of the body possesses an adhesive or hook and loop type strip (54, via 18) on its exterior for attachment to a door surface (12).
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) 3-4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200040624 to Workman.
Regarding claim 3, Workman does not explicitly disclose:
The door knob grip of claim 2 being composed of rubber or similar flexible material preferably possessing antimicrobial properties and high friction gripping qualities.
However, Workman discloses the use of rubber (46) to prevent sliding and provide better gripping qualities (paragraph 0017) 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 the rubber into the door knob grip of Workman at least because doing so would enhance frictional engagement (paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 4, Workman discloses:
The door knob grip of claim 3 being specifically shaped in construction to accommodate a door knob or door handle tightly within its inner walls while facilitating grasping by hands along its outer wall(s) or surface(s) (fig 1).
Regarding claim 11, Workman does not specifically teach The door stopping device of claim 9 being no more than thirty eight(38) inches in length and no less than seven(7) inches in length. However, Workman does teach an adjustable length of the door stopping device. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to alter the length of the door stopping device so that it could have many values usable in a variety of applications, including no more than thirty eight(38) inches in length and no less than seven(7) inches since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200040624 to Workman and in further view of US 4607253 to Wooten et al.
Regarding claim 12, Workman does not explicitly disclose:
The extending appendage of claim 8 possessing a spring for compression.
However, Wooten teaches that it is well known in the art for an extending appendage (3) to posses a spring (15) for compression. 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 Wooten into Workman at least because doing so would provide additional support for positioning of the device via biasing it in the desired position.
Regarding claim 13, Workman (in view of Wooten) discloses:
The extending appendage of claim 12 possessing a ring-like bracket attachment (19, Wooten) for compression of the spring between said bracket attachment and the bracket formed within the hollow body (fig 3).
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
