DETAILED ACTION
This Office action follows and supersedes the previous Office action, and is in response to the amendment filed on 12/22/2025. This instant Office action includes the addition of a rejection under 112(a). Currently, claims 1-7, 10-15 and 19-25 are pending. Claims 8-9 and 16-18 have been cancelled. New claims 21-25 have been added.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, “The door system of claim 1, comprising” is objected to because the transition is unclear as to whether the previously recited claim elements are included. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “The door system of claim 1, further comprising”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 24-25, the claims are drawn to a “kit of parts” (claim 24, line 1). However, applicant’s specification did not previously disclose such a kit. Further, it is not readily apparent from applicant’s drawings that the elements shown depict a group of parts that form a kit. Nowhere does the term “kit” appear in applicant’s disclosure. Applicant’s disclosure does not reasonably convey that any of the parts are grouped together in the form of a kit as claimed. While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit or inherent disclosure. MPEP 2163(B).
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 5-7 and 19-22 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 5, “one or more support elements” is indefinite because the claim previously recites one or more support elements in claim 1, thus making it unclear whether the one or more support elements of claim 5 are the same or different than the one or more support elements in claim 1. For examination purposes, the limitation was treated as being drawn to a different support element. Applicant is requested to clarify the claim language to further differentiate between the two support elements, such as by reciting in claim 1, “one or more first support elements” and in claim 5, “one or more second support elements” or equivalent. See also claim 19.
Claims 6-7, “the one or more support elements” is indefinite because the claims recite multiple support elements. Which support elements are being referred to in claims 6 and 7? See also claims 21-22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 5-7, 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 9707313 A1 (‘WO ‘313’) (as provided by applicant) in view of Lizdas (US 3924373) and further in view of Ridley (US 20200149330).
Claim 1, WO ‘313 teaches a door system for fitting to a wall, the door system comprising:
a first frame portion (30; Figs. 3-5); and
a second frame portion 31 to which a door leaf is attached (Figs. 3-5),
wherein the second frame portion is configured to slidingly engage with the first frame portion between first and second limit positions such that the door system can accommodate a variety of wall thicknesses (“to accommodate different wall thicknesses”; specification; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first and second limit positions are defined as the first portion being the point at which the first frame portion is pulled out of the second frame portion, and the second limit position is the point at which the first frame portion is pressed fully into the second frame portion; Figs. 3-5),
wherein the door system further comprises one or more support elements 40 configured to be affixed to the second frame portion (Figs. 3-5),
wherein the one or more support elements are configured to provide a contact point between the second frame portion and the wall (it is understood that 40 is suitable to provide a contact point between the second frame portion and the wall 42, 43, 44; Fig. 5),
wherein the one or more support elements comprise a structure (Figs. 3-5), such that the one or more support elements is configured to abut the second frame portion (Figs. 3-5), and
wherein the one or more support elements are configured to provide structural support to the second frame portion to enable the second frame portion to withstand forces applied to the second frame portion (it is understood that the one or more support elements 40 is suitable to provide structural support to the second frame portion to enable the second frame portion to withstand forces applied to the second frame portion; profiled part 40 is positioned between the second frame portion 31 and the wall 42, 43, 44; Figs. 3-5).
WO ‘313 does not teach the one or more support element comprising a substantially u-shaped structure comprising two supporting limbs and an intermediate limb, and wherein the door leaf comprises an anti-ligature device.
However, such a shape of support elements is known in the art, and it would have been well within the level of ordinary skill to modify the shape of WO 313’s support element to be u shaped. Lizdas teaches a door system for fitting to a wall, the door system comprising one or more support elements 10 comprising a substantially u-shaped structure (11, 12, 13; Figs. 2-4), such that the one or more support elements is comprise two supporting limbs (12, 13) configured to abut the second frame portion (Figs. 2-4), and an intermediate limb 11 coupling the two supporting limbs (Figs. 2-4). Lizdas teaches the support element being suitable to provide support to a door frame (col. 3, lines 5-15; Figs. 3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the one or more support element to comprise a substantially u-shaped structure, such that the one or more support elements comprise two supporting limbs configured to abut the second frame portion, and an intermediate limb coupling the two supporting limbs, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known shape of a support element to reinforce the door frame with a higher strength-to-weight ratio, thereby achieving necessary strength while using less material than a rectangular-shaped support element, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held 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.).
Further, Ridley teaches a door system for fitting to a wall, the door system comprising a door leaf (“door leaf” [0048]) comprising an anti-ligature device (“[t]he leaf may comprise an anti-ligature door leaf” [0048]; “top edge may slope downwards toward the leading edge” [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the door leaf such that the door leaf comprises an anti-ligature device, with the reasonable expectation of success of reducing a risk of an element such as a ligature being wedged or trapped (Ridley [0025[), since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see above citation).
Claim 2, as modified above, the combination of WO ‘313, Lizdas and Ridley teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the anti-ligature device comprises at least one of: a ligature-detection sensor; an anti-ligature hinge; an anti-ligature door handle; or a sloped door leaf edge (Ridley; a sloped door leaf edge [0048]).
Claim 3, as modified above, the combination of WO ‘313, Lizdas and Ridley teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the anti-ligature device comprises the sloped door leaf edge, and wherein the sloped door leaf edge is a top edge of the door leaf (Ridley; top sloped door leaf edge [0048]).
Claim 5, WO ‘313 further teaches wherein the door system comprises one or more support elements 39 configured to be affixed to the first frame portion (WO ‘313 Figs. 3-5) and configured to provide a contact point between the first frame portion and the wall (WO ‘313 Figs. 3-5).
Claim 6, as modified above, the combination of WO ‘313, Lizdas and Ridley teaches all the limitations of claim 5, and further teaches wherein the one or more support elements each defines a closed cross-sectional area with respect to the first frame portion (Lizdas Figs. 3-4).
Claim 7, as modified above, the combination of WO ‘313, Lizdas and Ridley teaches all the limitations of claim 5, and further teaches wherein the one or more support elements configured to be affixed to the first frame portion comprises two supporting limbs (Lizdas 12, 13; Figs. 2-4) configured to abut the first frame portion (WO ‘313 Figs. 3-5; Lizdas Figs. 2-4), and an intermediate limb (Lizdas 11) coupling the two supporting limbs (Lizdas Figs. 2-4).
Claim 10, as modified above, the combination of WO ‘313, Lizdas and Ridley teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches a further support element (WO ‘313 38) configured to provide a further contact point between the first frame portion and the second frame portion (WO ‘313 Figs. 3-5).
Claim 11, as modified above, the combination of WO ‘313, Lizdas and Ridley teaches all the limitations of claim 10, and further teaches wherein the further support element defines a further closed cross-sectional area with respect to the second frame portion (WO ‘313; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, WO ‘313’s element 38 comprises a closed cross-sectional area defined by a perimeter with respect to a surface of the second frame portion when abutted thereagainst, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 5).
Claim 13, as modified above, the combination of WO ‘313, Lizdas and Ridley teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the door leaf, when in a closed position, is free of ligature anchor points (Ridley; it is understood that the door leaf can be configured such that when in a closed position, is free of ligature anchor points; [0048]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 9707313 A1 (‘WO ‘313’) (as provided by applicant) in view of Lizdas (US 3924373) and Ridley (US 20200149330) as above and further in view of Eller et al. (US 20150130197) (‘Eller’).
Claim 4, as modified above, the combination of WO ‘313, Lizdas and Ridley teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the anti-ligature device comprises the anti-ligature door handle (Ridley [0077] “handle-less leaf”), but does not teach the anti-ligature door handle having a continuously sloped profile that is free of ligature anchor points. However, Eller teaches a door system comprising an anti-ligature device comprising an anti-ligature door handle 10, and wherein the anti-ligature door handle has a continuously sloped profile that is free of ligature anchor points (Eller Figs. 1-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the door system of WO ‘313 to comprise an anti-ligature device comprising an anti-ligature door handle, and wherein the anti-ligature door handle has a continuously sloped profile that is free of ligature anchor points, with the reasonable expectation of success of increasing the safety of the door system (Eller [0009]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 9707313 A1 (‘WO ‘313’) (as provided by applicant) in view of Lizdas (US 3924373) and Ridley (US 20200149330) as above and further in view of Kiselewski (US 3788019).
Claim 12, WO ‘313, Lizdas and Ridley teach all the limitations of claim 11 as above. WO ‘313 does not teach the further support element comprising two supporting limbs configured to abut the second frame portion, and an intermediate limb coupling the two supporting limbs. However, Kiselewski teaches an adjustable door system for fitting to a wall, comprising a first frame portion 14, a second frame portion 12, and a further support element 18 configured to provide a further contact point between the first frame portion and the second frame portion (Fig. 3), the further support element comprises two supporting limbs (see annotated Fig. 3 of Kiselewski shown below in Examiner’s Notes) configured to abut the second frame portion (annotated Fig. 3), and an intermediate limb (annotated Fig. 3) coupling the two supporting limbs (annotated Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to change the shape of the further support element of WO ‘313 such that the further support element comprises two supporting limbs configured to abut the second frame portion, and an intermediate limb coupling the two supporting limbs, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known shape of a support element to reinforce the door frame with a higher strength-to-weight ratio, thereby achieving necessary strength while using less material than a rectangular-shaped support element, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held 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.).
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 9707313 A1 (‘WO ‘313’) (as provided by applicant) in view of Lizdas (US 3924373) and Ridley (US 20200149330) as above and further in view of Mozuras et al. (US 4912879) (‘Mozuras’).
Claim 12, WO ‘313, Lizdas and Ridley teach all the limitations of claim 11 as above. WO ‘313 does not teach the further support element comprising two supporting limbs configured to abut the second frame portion, and an intermediate limb coupling the two supporting limbs. However, Mozuras teaches an adjustable door system for fitting to a wall, comprising a first frame portion 12, a second frame portion 10, and a further support element 18 configured to provide a further contact point between the first frame portion and the second frame portion (Fig. 5), the further support element comprises two supporting limbs (left and right limb of 18 shown in Fig. 5) configured to abut the second frame portion (Fig. 5), and an intermediate limb (limb of 18 between left and right limbs of 18 in Fig. 5) coupling the two supporting limbs (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to change the shape of the further support element of WO ‘313 such that the further support element comprises two supporting limbs configured to abut the second frame portion, and an intermediate limb coupling the two supporting limbs, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known shape of a support element to reinforce the door frame with a higher strength-to-weight ratio, thereby achieving necessary strength while using less material than a rectangular-shaped support element, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held 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.).
Claim 15, as modified above, the combination of WO ‘313, Lizdas and Ridley teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches a method of fitting the door system of claim 1 to a wall (WO ‘313; 42, 43, 44), comprising:
securing the first frame portion to the wall (WO ‘313 Fig. 5);
engaging the first frame portion with the second frame portion (WO ‘313 Fig. 5), the door leaf comprising the anti-ligature device (Ridley [0048]) and wherein the second frame portion is configured to slidingly engage with the first frame portion between the first and second limit positions (WO ‘313; “to accommodate different wall thicknesses”; specification; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first and second limit positions are defined as the first portion being the point at which the first frame portion is pulled out of the second frame portion, and the second limit position is the point at which the first frame portion is pressed fully into the second frame portion; Figs. 3-5);
moving the second frame portion to a position between the first and second limit positions such that the first frame portion and the second frame portion abut respective faces of the wall (WO ‘313; Figs. 3-5); and
securing the second frame portion to the wall, wherein one or more support elements are affixed to the second frame portion (WO ‘313; Figs. 3-5).
WO ‘313 does not teach the door leaf being pre-hung within the second frame portion.
However, it is known in the art to pre-hang a door leaf in a frame portion. Mozuras teaches a door leaf being pre-hung within a frame portion (col. 4, lines 30-50). Mozuras further teaches that is it within the level of ordinary skill to form the door system with a pre-hung door leaf or a non-pre-hung door leaf (col. 1, lines 29-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method such that the door leaf is pre-hung within the second frame portion, with the reasonable expectation of success of requiring fewer installation tools and reduce installation time, and/or providing a pre-fitted alignment in the frame, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in sequence of adding components. A change in sequence is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 9707313 A1 (‘WO ‘313’) (as provided by applicant) in view of Lizdas (US 3924373) and Ridley (US 20200149330) as above and further in view of Hall (US 20180325326).
Claim 14, WO ‘313, Lizdas and Ridley teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. WO ‘313 does not teach wherein the second frame portion comprises a fin configured to contact the door leaf when the door leaf is in a closed position, wherein the fin is made from a flexible material. However, Hall teaches a door system, comprising a door frame 208 comprising a fin 210 configured to contact a door leaf 204 when the door leaf is in a closed position ([0032]; Fig. 2), wherein the fin is made from a flexible material (flexible [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the second frame portion to comprise a fin configured to contact the door leaf when the door leaf is in a closed position, wherein the fin is made from a flexible material, with the reasonable expectation of success of preventing a ligature from being fixed at the meeting point between the door leaf and the frame (Hall [0032]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 9707313 A1 (‘WO ‘313’) (as provided by applicant) in view of Lizdas (US 3924373) and Ridley (US 20200149330) as above and further in view of Cornetto (US 20200362609).
Claim 15, as modified above, the combination of WO ‘313, Lizdas and Ridley teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches a method of fitting the door system of claim 1 to a wall (WO ‘313; 42, 43, 44), comprising:
securing the first frame portion to the wall (WO ‘313 Fig. 5);
engaging the first frame portion with the second frame portion (WO ‘313 Fig. 5), the door leaf comprising the anti-ligature device (Ridley [0048]) and wherein the second frame portion is configured to slidingly engage with the first frame portion between the first and second limit positions (WO ‘313; “to accommodate different wall thicknesses”; specification; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first and second limit positions are defined as the first portion being the point at which the first frame portion is pulled out of the second frame portion, and the second limit position is the point at which the first frame portion is pressed fully into the second frame portion; Figs. 3-5);
moving the second frame portion to a position between the first and second limit positions such that the first frame portion and the second frame portion abut respective faces of the wall (WO ‘313; Figs. 3-5); and
securing the second frame portion to the wall, wherein one or more support elements are affixed to the second frame portion (WO ‘313; Figs. 3-5).
WO ‘313 does not teach the door leaf being pre-hung within the second frame portion.
However, it is known in the art to pre-hang a door leaf in a frame portion. Cornetto teaches a door leaf being pre-hung within a frame portion [0010]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method such that the door leaf is pre-hung within the second frame portion, with the reasonable expectation of success of requiring fewer installation tools and reduce installation time, and/or providing a pre-fitted alignment in the frame, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in sequence of adding components. A change in sequence is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Claim(s) 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 9707313 A1 (‘WO ‘313’) (as provided by applicant) in view of Lizdas (US 3924373).
Claim 19, WO ‘313 teaches a door system for fitting to a wall, the door system comprising:
a first frame portion 30;
one or more support elements 39 configured to be affixed to the first frame portion (Figs. 3-5) and configured to provide a first contact point between the first frame portion and the wall (42, 43, 44; Fig. 5); and
a second frame portion 31;
one or more support elements 40 configured to be affixed to the second frame portion (Fig. 5) and configured to provide a second contact point between the second frame portion and the wall (Fig. 5); and
a further support element 38 configured to provide a third contact point between the first frame portion and the second frame portion (Figs. 4-5),
wherein the second frame portion is configured to slidingly engage with the first frame portion between first and second limit positions such that the door system can accommodate a variety of wall thicknesses (“to accommodate different wall thicknesses”; specification; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first and second limit positions are defined as the first portion being the point at which the first frame portion is pulled out of the second frame portion, and the second limit position is the point at which the first frame portion is pressed fully into the second frame portion; Figs. 3-5).
WO ‘313 does not teach wherein at least one of the one or more support elements [comprises] a substantially u-shaped structure, such that the one or more support elements or the further support element (the limitation was treated as requiring one of the one or more support elements and the further support element) comprises two supporting limbs configured to abut the second frame portion, and an intermediate limb coupling the two supporting limbs.
However, such a shape of support elements is known in the art, and it would have been well within the level of ordinary skill to modify the shape of WO 313’s support element to be u shaped. Lizdas teaches a door system for fitting to a wall, the door system comprising one or more support elements 10 comprising a substantially u-shaped structure (11, 12, 13; Figs. 2-4), such that the one or more support elements is comprise two supporting limbs (12, 13) configured to abut the second frame portion (Figs. 2-4), and an intermediate limb 11 coupling the two supporting limbs (Figs. 2-4). Lizdas teaches the support element being suitable to provide support to a door frame (col. 3, lines 5-15; Figs. 3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the one or more support element to comprise a substantially u-shaped structure, such that the one or more support elements comprise two supporting limbs configured to abut the second frame portion, and an intermediate limb coupling the two supporting limbs, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known shape of a support element to reinforce the door frame with a higher strength-to-weight ratio, thereby achieving necessary strength while using less material than a rectangular-shaped support element, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held 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.).
Claim 20, as modified above, the combination of WO ‘313 and Lizdas teaches all the limitations of claim 19, and further teaches a method of fitting the door system of claim 19 to a wall, comprising:
securing the first frame portion to the wall (WO ‘313 Fig. 5),
engaging the first frame portion with a second frame portion (WO ‘313 Fig. 5), wherein the second frame portion is configured to slidingly engage with the first frame portion between first and second limit positions (“to accommodate different wall thicknesses”; specification; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first and second limit positions are defined as the first portion being the point at which the first frame portion is pulled out of the second frame portion, and the second limit position is the point at which the first frame portion is pressed fully into the second frame portion; Figs. 3-5),
moving the second frame portion to a position between the first and second limit positions such that the first frame portion and the second frame portion abut respective faces of the wall (WO ‘313; Fig. 5); and
securing the second frame portion to the wall (WO ‘313; Fig. 5).
Claim 21, as modified above, the combination of WO ‘313 and Lizdas teaches all the limitations of claim 19, and further teaches wherein the one or more support elements configured to be affixed to the first frame portion define a closed cross-sectional area with respect to the first frame portion (WO ‘313; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, WO ‘313’s element 39 comprises a closed cross-sectional area defined by a perimeter with respect to a surface of the first frame portion when abutted thereagainst, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 5).
Claim 22, as modified above, the combination of WO ‘313 and Lizdas teaches all the limitations of claim 19, and further teaches wherein at least one of the one or more support configured to be affixed to the second frame portion and the further support element defines a closed cross-sectional area with respect to the second frame portion (WO ‘313; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, WO ‘313’s element 40 comprises a closed cross-sectional area defined by a perimeter with respect to a surface of the second frame portion when abutted thereagainst, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 9707313 A1 (‘WO ‘313’) (as provided by applicant) in view of Cornetto (US 20200362609).
Claim 23, WO ‘313 teaches a method of fitting a door system to a wall, comprising:
securing a first frame portion 30 to the wall (42, 43, 44);
engaging the first frame portion with a second frame portion 31, a door leaf 5, and wherein the second frame portion is configured to slidingly engage with the first frame portion between first and second limit positions such that the door system can accommodate a variety of wall thicknesses (“to accommodate different wall thicknesses”; specification; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first and second limit positions are defined as the first portion being the point at which the first frame portion is pulled out of the second frame portion, and the second limit position is the point at which the first frame portion is pressed fully into the second frame portion; Figs. 3-5);
moving the second frame portion to a position between the first and second limit positions such that the first and second frame portions abut respective faces of the wall (Fig. 5); and
securing the second frame portion to the wall (Fig. 5).
WO ‘313 does not teach the door leaf comprising an anti-ligature device and being pre-hung within the second frame portion (note that the claim is a product claim and the limitation, “pre-hung within the second frame portion” is a product-by-process limitation).
However, it is known in the art for a door leaf to both comprise an anti-ligature device and to be pre-hung. Cornetto teaches a door leaf comprising an anti-ligature device ([0048], [0049], [0050]) that is pre-hung within a second frame portion ([0010], [0037]; Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form the door system comprising a door leaf that comprises an anti-ligature device that is pre-hung within the second frame portion, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to provide a door that reduces a risk of an element such as a ligature being wedged or trapped, and requiring fewer installation tools and reduce installation time, and/or providing a pre-fitted alignment in the frame, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see above citation)), and a change in sequence is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results)).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 9707313 A1 (‘WO ‘313’) (as provided by applicant) in view of Ridley (US 20200149330) and further in view of Faudree (US 3861099).
Claim 24, WO ‘313 teaches a kit of parts for a door system for fitting to a wall, the kit of parts comprising:
a first frame portion 30; and
a second frame portion 31, to which a door leaf 5 is attached (specification; it is understood that the door is installed in the door frame);
wherein the second frame portion is configured to slidingly engage with the first frame portion between first and second limit positions such that the door system can accommodate a variety of wall thicknesses (“to accommodate different wall thicknesses”; specification; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first and second limit positions are defined as the first portion being the point at which the first frame portion is pulled out of the second frame portion, and the second limit position is the point at which the first frame portion is pressed fully into the second frame portion; Figs. 3-5).
WO ‘313 does not teach the door leaf being pre-hung within the second frame portion, and wherein the second frame portion is not yet engaged with the first frame portion.
However, Ridley teaches a door system for fitting to a wall, the door system comprising a door leaf (“door leaf” [0048]) comprising an anti-ligature device (“[t]he leaf may comprise an anti-ligature door leaf” [0048]; “top edge may slope downwards toward the leading edge” [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the door leaf such that the door leaf comprises an anti-ligature device, with the reasonable expectation of success of reducing a risk of an element such as a ligature being wedged or trapped (Ridley [0025[), since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see above citation).
Further, it is known in the art to pre-hang a door leaf in a frame portion. Faudree teaches a door leaf being pre-hung within a frame portion, wherein the door frame comprises two halves, and the pre-hung door is engaged with one half of the door frame, but is not yet engaged with the other half (col. 4, lines 34-41; col. 4, lines 7-9; Figs. 1 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form the kit such that the second frame portion is not yet engaged with the first frame portion, with the reasonable expectation of success of eliminating cost and time for a carpenter to cut and fit doors during construction (Faudree col. 1, lines 54-56).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 9707313 A1 (‘WO ‘313’) (as provided by applicant) in view of Ridley (US 20200149330) and Faudree (US 3861099) as above and further in view of Lizdas (US 3924373).
Claim 25, WO ‘313 further teaches one or more support elements 40 configured to be affixed to the second frame portion (Fig. 5), wherein the one or more support elements are configured to provide a contact point between the second frame portion and the wall (Fig. 5).
wherein the one or more support elements is configured to provide structural support to the second frame portion to enable the second frame portion to withstand forces applied to the second frame portion (it is understood that the one or more support elements 40 is suitable to provide structural support to the second frame portion to enable the second frame portion to withstand forces applied to the second frame portion; profiled part 40 is positioned between the second frame portion 31 and the wall 42, 43, 44; Figs. 3-5). WO ‘313 does not teach wherein the one or more support elements [comprises] a substantially u-shaped structure, such that the one or more support elements comprise two supporting limbs configured to abut the second frame portion, and an intermediate limb coupling the two supporting limbs. However, Lizdas teaches a door assembly, wherein one or more support elements 10 [comprises] a substantially u-shaped structure (11, 12, 13; Figs. 2-4), such that the one or more support elements comprise two supporting limbs (12, 13) configured to abut a second frame portion 26, and an intermediate limb 11 coupling the two supporting limbs (Figs. 2-4), and wherein the one or more support elements is configured to provide structural support to the second frame portion to enable the second frame portion to withstand forces applied to the second frame portion (col. 3, lines 5-15; Figs. 3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the one or more support element to comprise a substantially u-shaped structure, such that the one or more support elements comprise two supporting limbs configured to abut the second frame portion, and an intermediate limb coupling the two supporting limbs, wherein the one or more support elements is configured to provide structural support to the second frame portion to enable the second frame portion to withstand forces applied to the second frame portion, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known shape of a support element to reinforce the door frame with a higher strength-to-weight ratio, thereby achieving necessary strength while using less material than a rectangular-shaped support element, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held 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.).
Examiner’s Notes
PNG
media_image1.png
358
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Kiselewski (US 3788019)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 10-15 and 19-25 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. See PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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 Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635