DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a reply to the amendment filed on 5/22/2026. Currently, claims 1-7, 10-15, 19-22, 24 and 26 are pending. Claims 8-9, 16-18, 23 and 25 have been cancelled. No claims have been withdrawn. New claim 26 has been added.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/22/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 24 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, the claim is drawn to “[a] kit of parts” (claim 24, line 1). However, applicant’s specification did not previously disclose such kit. Further, it was not readily apparent from applicant’s drawings that applicant intended for the illustrated elements and features of the invention to be in the form of a kit. Nowhere did “kit” appear in applicant’s disclosure. 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). Since applicant’s disclosure, taken as a whole did not reasonably convey that any of the disclosed elements and features were grouped together in the form of a kit as claimed, the limitation was treated as new matter.
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.
Claim 24 is 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 24, “wherein the second frame portion is not yet engaged with the first frame portion” (lines 7-8) is indefinite because the claim is a product claim (“[a] kit of parts”) and the claim language, “not yet engaged” implies that the first and second frame portions are engaged at a later time as a method step. The claim later recites, “when the first frame portion and the second frame portion are slidably engaged”, which muddies the requirements of the product claim, as the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear as whether the first and second frames are required to be engaged. Since the claim is a product claim recited as a kit, the claim was treated as collection of components that are not required to be installed or assembled. Applicant is requested to clarify the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5-7, 10-12, 15, 19-22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiselewski (US 3788019).
Claim 1, Kiselewski provides a door system for fitting to a wall, the door system comprising:
a first frame portion (see annotated Fig. 2 of Kiselewski shown below in Examiner Notes); and
a second frame portion (annotated Fig. 2) to which a door leaf is attached (annotated Fig. 2),
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 (it is understood that the second frame portion is suitable to be slidingly engaged with the first frame portion between first and second limit positions when the second frame portion is slid all the way in and all the way out to accommodate various wall thicknesses; Fig. 2),
wherein the door system further comprises one or more first support elements (annotated Fig. 2) configured to be affixed to the second frame portion (annotated Fig. 2), wherein the one or more first support elements are configured to provide a contact point between a side of the second frame portion and a surface of the wall that faces both the side of the second frame portion and a side of the first frame portion when the first frame portion and the second frame portion are slidingly engaged (see arrangement of the first support element relative to the first and second frame portions and the surface of the wall; annotated Fig. 2),
wherein the one or more first 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 (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the one or more first support elements directly abuts the second frame portion and presses against the wall, thus 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, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Fig. 2).
Claim 5, Kiselewski further provides wherein the door system comprises one or more second support elements (annotated Fig. 2) configured to be affixed to the first frame portion (annotated Fig. 2) and to provide a contact point between the first frame portion and the wall (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the one or more second support elements abuts the first frame portion and provides a contact point between the first frame portion and the wall, via elements 16 and 18; annotated Fig. 2).
Claim 6, Kiselewski further provides wherein the one or more second support elements configured to be affixed to the first frame portion each defines a closed cross-sectional area with respect to the first frame portion (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “defines a closed cross-sectional area”, the one or more second support elements is suitable to define a closed cross-sectional area with respect to the first frame portion, as a closed space is formed between the second support element and the first frame portion in annotated Fig. 2).
Claim 7, Kiselewski further provides wherein the one or more second support elements configured to be affixed to the first frame portion comprises two supporting limbs configured to abut the first frame portion, and an intermediate limb coupling the two supporting limbs (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of applicant’s definition of U-shaped element 303 comprising “two substantially vertical supporting limbs” and “a substantially horizontal intermediate limb” in applicant’s paragraph [0059] as published and applicant’s Fig. 3B, Kiselewski’s second support element has a first supporting limb at reference character 34, a second supporting limb at reference character 36, each abutting the first frame portion, and an intermediate limb coupling the first and second supporting limbs in annotated Fig. 2).
Claim 10, Kiselewski further provides a further support element (“further support element” annotated Fig. 2; alternatively the further support element could be the “second support element” 20 in annotated Fig. 2, as exceedingly broadly claimed) configured to provide a further contact point between the first frame portion and the second frame portion (the further support element directly abuts the second frame portion, and is coupled to the first frame portion via elements 18 and 20, and thus provides a further contact point between the first and second frame portions; annotated Fig. 2; under the alternative interpretation, the second support element 20 is suitable to provide a further contact point between the first frame portion and the second frame portion; annotated Fig. 2).
Claim 11, Kiselewski further provides wherein the further support element defines a further closed cross-sectional area with respect to the second frame portion (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “defines a further closed cross-sectional area”, the further support element forms a closed space with the second frame portion as the further support element directly abuts the second frame portion at reference character 26 and directly abuts 18 which directly abuts the second frame portion, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Fig. 2).
Claim 12, Kiselewski further provides wherein the further support element comprises two supporting limbs configured to abut the second frame portion, and an intermediate limb coupling the two supporting limbs (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of applicant’s definition of U-shaped element 303 comprising “two substantially vertical supporting limbs” and “a substantially horizontal intermediate limb” in applicant’s paragraph [0059] as published and applicant’s Fig. 3B, Kiselewski’s further support element comprises a first supporting limb at reference character 26 that abuts the second frame portion, a second supporting limb at the vertical portion of the further support member that abuts the second frame portion via element 18, and an intermediate limb at the horizontal portion of the further support element coupling the two supporting limbs; annotated Fig. 2).
Claim 15, Kiselewski provides a method of fitting the door system of claim 1 to a wall, comprising:
securing the first frame portion to the wall (annotated Fig. 2);
engaging the first frame portion with the second frame portion (annotated Fig. 2), wherein the door leaf is pre-hung within the second frame portion (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “pre-hung”, Kiselewski’s door 42 is mounted to the second frame portion prior to installation; col. 3, lines 19-25), and wherein the second frame portion is configured to slidingly engage with the first frame portion between the first and second limit positions (it is understood that the second frame portion is suitable to slidingly engage with the first frame portion between first and second limit positions when the second frame portion is slid all the way in and all the way out to accommodate various wall thicknesses; annotated Fig. 2);
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 (annotated Fig. 2); and
securing the second frame portion to the wall (annotated Fig. 2), wherein one or more support elements 18 are affixed to the second frame portion (annotated Fig. 2).
Claim 19, Kiselewski provides a door system for fitting to a wall, the door system comprising:
a first frame portion (annotated Fig. 2 shown below in Examiner Notes);
a second frame portion (annotated Fig. 2) 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 (it is understood that the second frame portion is suitable to be slidingly engaged with the first frame portion between first and second limit positions when the second frame portion is slid all the way in and all the way out to accommodate various wall thicknesses; Fig. 2);
one or more first support elements (labeled “second support element” in annotated Fig. 2) configured to be affixed to the first frame portion (annotated Fig. 2) and configured to provide a first contact point between a side of the first frame portion and a surface of the wall that faces both a side of a second frame portion and the side of the first frame portion when the first frame portion and the second frame portion are slidingly engaged (annotated Fig. 2);
one or more second support elements (labeled “first support element” in annotated Fig. 2) configured to be affixed to the second frame portion (annotated Fig. 2) and configured to provide a second contact point between a side of the second frame portion and the wall (annotated Fig., 2); and
a further support element (“further support element” in annotated Fig. 2) configured to provide a third contact point between the first frame portion and the second frame portion (annotated Fig. 2).
Claim 20, Kiselewski provides a method of fitting the door system of claim 19 to a wall, comprising:
securing the first frame portion to the wall (annotated Fig. 2);
engaging the first frame portion with a second frame portion (annotated Fig. 2), wherein the second frame portion is configured to slidingly engage with the first frame portion between first and second limit positions (it is understood that the second frame portion is suitable to be slidingly engaged with the first frame portion between first and second limit positions when the second frame portion is slid all the way in and all the way out to accommodate various wall thicknesses; Fig. 2), 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 (annotated Fig. 2); and
securing the second frame portion to the wall (annotated Fig. 2).
Claim 21, Kiselewski further provides wherein the one or more first support elements configured to be affixed to the first frame portion define a closed cross-sectional area with respect to the first frame portion (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “defines a closed cross-sectional area”, the “second support element” in annotated Fig. 2 defines a closed space with the first frame portion thereby defining a closed-cross sectional area with respect to the first frame; annotated Fig. 2).
Claim 22, Kiselewski further provides wherein at least one of the one or more second support elements 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 (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “defines a closed cross-sectional area”, the “first support element” in annotated Fig. 2 forms a closed space the second frame portion and thus defines a closed cross-sectional area with respect to the second frame portion; annotated Fig. 2).
Claim 24, Kiselewski provides a kit of parts for a door system for fitting to a wall (note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the components provided by Kiselewski are suitable to form a kit as exceedingly broadly claimed), the kit of parts comprising:
a first frame portion (see annotated Fig. 2 of Kiselewski as shown below in Examiner Notes);
a second frame portion (annotated Fig. 2) to which a door leaf is attached (annotated Fig. 2), 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 (it is understood that the second frame portion is suitable to be slidingly engaged with the first frame portion between first and second limit positions when the second frame portion is slid all the way in and all the way out to accommodate various wall thicknesses; Fig. 2), but wherein the second frame portion is not yet engaged with the first frame portion (with the components of Kiselewski prior to assembly/installation, the second frame portion is not yet engaged with the first frame portion; col. 3, lines 13-35); and
one or more support elements (first support element in annotated Fig. 2) configured to be affixed to the second frame portion (annotated Fig. 2), wherein the one or more support elements are configured to provide a contact point between a side of the second frame portion and a surface of the wall that faces both the side of the second frame portion and a side of the first frame portion when the first frame portion and the second frame portion are slidably engaged (annotated Fig. 2),
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 (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the one or more support elements directly abuts the second frame portion and presses against the wall, thus 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, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Fig. 2).
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) 26, 2-3, 13 (claim 2 is dependent upon claim 26) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiselewski (US 3788019) in view of Ridley (US 20200149330).
Claims 26 and 2, Kiselewski teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Kiselewski does not teach wherein the door leaf comprises an anti-ligature device. However, Ridley teaches a door system for fitting to a wall, the door system comprising a door leaf ("door leaf" [0048]) comprising [claim 26] 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]), [claim 2] 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]). 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, 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, with the reasonable expectation of success of reducing a risk of an element such as a ligature being wedged or trapped by the door leaf (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 3, as modified above, the combination of Kiselewski 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 13, Kiselewski teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Kiselewski does not teach wherein the door leaf, when in a closed position, is free of ligature anchor points. However, Ridley teaches a door system for fitting to a wall, the door system comprising a door leaf ("door leaf" [0048]) comprising [claim 26] 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], wherein the door leaf is suitable to be free of ligature anchor points [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 of Kiselewski such that when in a closed position, is free of ligature anchor points, with the reasonable expectation of success of reducing the possibility of self-harm in vulnerable individuals left unsupervised (Ridley abstract), and since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143(B).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiselewski (US 3788019) in view of Ridley (US 20200149330) as above and further in view of Eller et al. (US 20150130197) (‘Eller’).
Claim 4, as modified above, the combination of Kiselewski 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 Kiselewski 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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiselewski (US 3788019) in view of Ridley (US 20200149330) as above and further in view of Hall (US 20180325326).
Claim 14, Kiselewski further teaches wherein the second frame portion comprises a fin (vertical portion of the second frame portion shown in Fig. 1) configured to contact the door leaf when the door leaf is in a closed position (Fig. 1). Kiselewski is silent as to the fin being 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]).
Examiner Notes
PNG
media_image1.png
556
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Kiselewski (US 3788019)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 10-15, 19-22, 24 and 26 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.
Applicant has amended the claims to further narrow the scope in some instances and broadened in others. The rejections in the previous Office action have been modified to address the amended claims. Applicant’s arguments are respectfully drawn to the claims as amended.
Rejection of claim 24 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.
Re claim 24, applicant argues that there need not be an explicit recitation of exact claim language in the specification, and the claims allegedly did not introduce new structural components. The examiner agrees that there is no in haec verba requirement for explicitly describing terms in the specification, but new claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit or inherent disclosure. MPEP 2163(B). Recitation of a kit requires a specific collection of components. Applicant acknowledges that there was no express disclosure. The components are not inherently a kit. There was simply no indication in applicant’s disclosure that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to think that applicant’s components were intended to be provided as a discrete set of components in the form a kit. As such, the limitation was treated as new matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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
Prosecution Insights