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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner thanks applicant for clarity of claims 1 and 16 regarding 112b rejections.
Regarding 102 rejections over Parker, applicant has further clarified the definition of the slot to require the use of a 103 to address the slot claimed. Examiner thanks applicant for claim amendments that further prosecution.
Regarding 103 rejection over Parker in view of Anderson: applicant asserts that the proposed change of shape of part of Parker to incorporate the shape and purpose of Anderson, “fails to improve” Parker, and doing so “would be counter to the object of Parker as a walking aid”. Applicant asserts changing the shape of two of the feet of the walking aid of Parker “reduces stability”. Examiner contends that the change of shape provides more surface of the foot to engage the surface of the floor, which provides more surface friction for the rubber feet. For this reason, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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, 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3289685 Parker in view of 5263551 Andersen.
Regarding claim 1, Parker discloses a doorstop (function and title of the device defined below) mountable to bar grating, the doorstop comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
536
275
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a body 5 having a first end and an opposing second end;
a handle 12/14 attached to the first end of the body; and
a mounting member (in the box) comprising:
a base 2 having a first side (annotated in figure 5) attached to the second end of the body 5 and a second side opposing the first side (annotated in figure 5); and
a receiving member (pair of legs shown in figure 1) extending from the second side of the base (two on each “side”, figure 5) and comprising a first projection and a second projection (two legs 38), wherein the space between the legs 38 is capable of receiving a bar of bar grating;
PNG
media_image2.png
261
307
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the body 8 is attached to the first side of the base 2 (as shown in figure 5) laterally spaced apart from where the first side opposes the second side of the base 2 that defines the level side of the slot; and the handle 12/14 is attached to the body 8 at a handle angle (90 degrees) to the body, and
the handle 12/14 is attached to the body 8 at a handle angle to the body, and the handle extends over the first side of the base 2 (as shown in figure 1) where the first side of the base opposes the second side of the base 2.
Parker’s projections provide space capable of receiving a bar of bar grating, but does not disclose the use of a tapered side defining a slot, and the space capable of receiving a bar grating also defining a channel.
PNG
media_image3.png
283
339
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
568
587
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Anderson discloses a doorstop/multi-use article comprising a two engagement features 88 and 86 which are shaped to engage a bar (figure 2), which includes using a tapered surface opposite a flat upper surface of the space. Anderson discloses the projection (feet 78) below the flat surface of figure 1 is shaped with multiple projections for better frictional engagement with the surface abutting the projection/foot 78. The device is used on bars between the tapered surface and the flat surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the shape of the projection of Parker to be in the shape of the projection of Anderson to create a shape appropriate for engaging a bar (as taught in Anderson) so that the device of Parker is usable in more situations without reducing its usability in its commonly used situation taught in Parker. Examiner contends that making the floor engaging surface of Parker larger also provides with better frictional engagement with the ground during use of Parker, and therefore provides more stable upright position. Based on the modified figure 1, the claim requires that the “slot” is the space between the tapered surface of the projection and the flat surface of the base 2, which is shown in Parker as modified, and the channel is the space between the end of the tapered surface and the opposite projection 38.
Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114. Examiner notes the phrases in italics above, and throughout the action, are considered intended use. Examiner contends that the structure capable of performing the intended use is met in the prior art, and is described how the structure disclosed performs the claimed functions in the parentheses; therefore, all italicized language is considered and shown in the prior art. Further, examiner notes that the disclosed structure is capable of performing the intended use claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 12, Parker discloses the doorstop of claim 1, wherein the body 8 comprises one of a hollow tube and a solid rod (as shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Parker discloses the doorstop of claim 12, wherein the handle 12/14 comprises one of a hollow tube and a solid rod continuous with the hollow tube or solid rod of the body (top handle 12 is “continuous”).
Regarding claim 14, Parker discloses the doorstop of claim 1, wherein the handle comprises a grooved rubber grip (“rubber or plastic tubular sheathing 13 fixed thereto for improved frictional grip and appearance” column 2 line 45).
Regarding claim 15, Parker discloses the doorstop of claim 1, wherein: the body 8 has a body length; the handle 12/14 has a handle length; and the body length is at least three times the handle length (as shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Parker discloses a doorstop (function and title of the device defined below) mountable to a bar grating (function and intended combination), the doorstop comprising:
a body 5 having a first end and an opposing second end; a handle 12/14 attached to the first end of the body 5; and a mounting member (shown in detail in figure 1) comprising:
a base 2 having a first side (annotated in figure 5) attached to the second end of the body 5 and a second side opposing the first side (annotated in figure 5);
a first receiving member 38 (pair of legs) extending from the second side of the base 2 and comprising a first and second projection (two legs 38), between the projections 38 is a space capable of receiving a bar of bar grating; and
a second receiving member 38 (opposite pair of legs) extending from the second side of the base (as shown in figure 5) and opposing the first receiving member 38, between the projections 38 is a space capable of receiving a bar of bar grating;
wherein the body 5 is attached to the first side of the base 2 (as shown in figure 1) laterally spaced apart from where the first side opposes the first slot and the second slot; and
the handle 12/14 is attached to the body 2 at a handle angle (90 degrees) to the body 5, and the handle is angled towards the second side (see 112b above) of the base and over where the first side opposes the first slot and the second slot.
PNG
media_image3.png
283
339
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
568
587
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Anderson discloses a doorstop/multi-use article comprising a two engagement features 88 and 86 which are shaped to engage a bar (figure 2), which includes using a tapered surface opposite a flat upper surface of the space. Anderson discloses the projection (feet 78) below the flat surface of figure 1 is shaped with multiple projections for better frictional engagement with the surface abutting the projection/foot 78. The device is used on bars between the tapered surface and the flat surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the shape of the projection of Parker to be in the shape of the projection of Anderson to create a shape appropriate for engaging a bar (as taught in Anderson) so that the device of Parker is usable in more situations without reducing its usability in its commonly used situation taught in Parker. Examiner contends that making the floor engaging surface of Parker larger also provides with better frictional engagement with the ground during use of Parker, and therefore provides more stable upright position. Based on the modified figure 1, the claim requires that the “slot” is the space between the tapered surface of the projection and the flat surface of the base 2, which is shown in Parker as modified, and the channel is the space between the end of the tapered surface and the opposite projection 38.
Claim(s) 1, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2370860 Hanke, in view of 2013/0111707 Mowry, in further view of 5263551 Andersen.
Regarding claim 17, examiner notes that the device of claim 17 positively includes the bar grating, which is claimed as intended use in claim 1. The structure of the body, handle, and mounting members are identical in structure, in claims 1 and 17, and therefore rejecting the combination of claim 17 also rejects the structure of claim 1.
PNG
media_image5.png
230
317
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Hanke discloses a mounting member (“socket”, figure 1) comprising:
a base 12, and
a receiving member (two side arms 14) extending from the base 12 and (each receiving member 14) comprising a first projection and a second projection (annotated in figure 2 below), wherein the first projection defines a side of a slot (annotated, part of slot 15 which is horizontal) holding the first bar 26 and the second side of the base defines a level side of the slot (both sides of the slot of Hanke are level), and the first projection and the second projection together define a channel (vertical portion of slot 15, as annotated) adjoining the slot;
wherein the pot is attached to the first side of the base 12 laterally spaced apart from where the first side opposes the second side of the base 12.
Hanke discloses the use of a mounting member having a base and two receiving members, the receiving members having a j-shaped slot used with a bar 26, in order to connect a handle 16 to a cooking device. Hanke does not disclose that the cooking device is a bar grating, or that the handle of Hanke has the structure as claimed by applicant.
PNG
media_image6.png
332
599
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Mowry discloses a handle that is attached to a bar grating 12, Mowry discloses a doorstop (intended function, not a structure; the device of Mowry is capable of being used as a doorstop if the floor is made of bar grating) mounted to bar grating 12 (bar grating in a grill) comprising a first bar and a second perpendicular bar (more bars are shown in Mowry), the doorstop comprising:
a body (annotated) having a first end and an opposing second end;
a handle 14’ attached to the first end of the body; and
a mounting member comprising: a base 20 (annotated) having a first side attached to the second end of the body (as shown in figure 7) and a second side opposing the first side; and a receiving member 24; wherein the body (annotated) is attached to the first side of the base 20 laterally spaced apart from where the first side opposes the second side of the base; and the handle 14’ is attached to the body (annotated) at a handle angle to the body (shown in figure 7 and 6).
PNG
media_image7.png
373
215
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the old and well known bar attachment mechanism that requires angular motion, such as that taught by Hanke, to other known handles that engage devices with bars and require angular motion, such as that taught Mowry. Examiner notes that both bar attachment mechanisms of Hanke and Mowry require an angular insertion of the bar, and then an angular movement to latch the bar into the attachment mechanisms; Mowry teaches rotation around the axis of bar 19, and Hanke discloses rotation of the bar 26 while it is in the corner of the slot/channel. Examiner contends that the handle of Mowry can use a different bar engagement mechanism to engage the bars required in Mowry, and Hanke teaches an equivalent bar attachment mechanism for handles. Examiner contends that the modification replaces one known rotational direction for a different rotational direction, which are known alternatives in the art, and can be chosen by the applicant for their own ease of use and adapt to any personal limitations or strengths. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Hanke discloses both sides of the slot section are perpendicular, not that one side is flat and the other is tapered.
Anderson discloses a doorstop/multi-use article comprising a two engagement features 88 and 86 which are shaped to engage a bar (figure 2), which includes using a tapered surface opposite a flat upper surface of the space. Anderson discloses the projection (feet 78) below the flat surface of figure 1 is shaped with multiple projections for better frictional engagement with the surface abutting the projection/foot 78. The device is used on bars between the tapered surface and the flat surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the shape of one surface of the slot of Hanke to be tapered in the old and well known manner of dealing with bars in a slot attachment mechanism, as is old and well known in the art taught by Anderson. Examiner contends that this change of shape has equivalent function and is a known equivalent for bars in slot attachment means. A change of shape is considered a matter of choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (b). Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Regarding claim 18, Hanke as modified discloses the doorstop of claim 17, wherein the second side of the base rests upon the second perpendicular bar (upper bar, shown in figure 6 of Mowry) of the bar grating (best shown in figure 6 of Mowry, and Mowry as modified shown above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. 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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677