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 were previously objected to. Applicant has successfully addressed these issues in the amendments filed on 11/18/2025. Accordingly, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 6-9 were previously rejected under 35 USC § 112. Applicant has successfully addressed these issues in the amendments filed on 11/18/2025. Accordingly, the rejection to the claims have been withdrawn.
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, 3-4, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220127881 to McCain in view of GB 2334296 to Meakin.
Regarding claim 1, McCain discloses:
A door stop (10) for use with a sliding door assembly (fig 5) including an active panel (22) mounted for sliding movement in front of a fixed panel (20), the fixed panel having a frame (frame that surrounds the panel) including a first side frame member (right side as seen in fig 5) and a second side frame member (left side as seen in fig 5), the door stop comprising: a support member (32) configured to extend parallel to the fixed panel (fig 5), the support member including a first section (right section) having a first end (top end) and a second end (bottom end seen in fig 1), a first planar pressure plate (12) coupled to and extending parallel to the first end of the first section and configured to abut and exert pressure on the first side frame member of the fixed panel (fig 5); a second section (left section) having a first end (top end) and a second end (bottom end as seen in fig 1), a second planar pressure plate (66) fixedly secured to and extending parallel to the first end of the second section and configured to abut and exert pressure on the second side frame member of the fixed panel when the first planar pressure plate is positioned against the first side of the fixed panel (fig 5, via the sliding panel); and a projecting member (40) extending from a sleeve (47) mounted for sliding movement between the first and second ends of the first section (see paragraph 0020), the projecting member extending perpendicular to the passive panel (fig 1) and having sufficient length to block movement of the active panel in one direction (see fig 1 and 5).
McCain does not explicitly disclose: a first tubular section and a second tubular section. However, Meakin teaches that it is well known in the art for a first section (32) and a second section (34) to be tubular. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tubular section as taught by Meakin into the assembly of McCain at least because doing so requires the simple change of shape and could be accomplished without undue experimentation and would yield the same result, providing a first and second section.
Additionally, McCain does not explicitly disclose:
and an adjustment mechanism disposed between the first and second tubular sections and configured to allow adjustment of the distance between the first and second tubular sections. However, Meakin teaches that it is well known in the art for an adjustment mechanism (34) disposed between the first and second tubular sections and configured to allow adjustment of the distance between the first and second tubular sections (threads between 10 and 24 allow for length adjustment, see fig 2). 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 Meakin into McCain at least because doing so would provide additional utility for using the invention in different doors that require different lengths.
Regarding claim 3, McCain (in view of Meakin) discloses:
The door stop according to claim 1, further comprising a releasable locking mechanism
(62, Meakin) configured to fix the position of the projecting member (34) relative to the support member (56). 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 Meakin into McCain at least because doing so would provide additional security by securing the position of the projecting member.
Regarding claim 4, McCain (in view of Meakin) discloses:
The door stop according to claim 3, wherein: the releasable locking mechanism includes a set screw (62, Meakin) extending through the sleeve, the set screw having sufficient length to engage an outer surface of the first tubular section when fully tightened (See fig 3 of Meakin).
Regarding claim 7, McCain (in view of Meakin) discloses:
The door stop according to claim 5, wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a rod (34, Meakin) having: a first end (right end as seen in fig 2) carried by and fixed with relation to the first tubular section; and a second end (left end as seen in fig 2) mounted for longitudinal movement within the second tubular section (as the rod is threaded in/out).
Regarding claim 8, McCain (in view of Meakin) discloses:
The door stop according to claim 7, wherein: the rod is threaded (fig 2, Meakin); the first end of the rod is carried by a threaded insert (42) in the first tubular section; and the second end of the rod passes through, and is slidable with respect to, a bearing (48) in the second tubular section.
Regarding claim 9, McCain (in view of Meakin) discloses:
The door stop according to claim 8, wherein the rod passes through at least one threaded insert (threads of 46) in a tubular adjustment handle (46 is configured to be used as a handle the user uses) located between the first and second tubular sections (fig 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the instant invention differs from the prior art, Examiner notes that the claims must reflect said differences to be given patentable weight. Applicant has incorporated the previously rejected dependent claims into the independent claim to further narrow the scope of claim 1, but Applicant’s argument that said changes clearly distinguish claim 1 over McCain and should be allowed is not applicable, since claim 1 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCain in view of Meakin. See rejection above. Therefore, rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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