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 .
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 12/22/25.
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, 2, and 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 9,303,434 to Tarquino in view of EP 0890693 to Drumm, US Pat No 11,542,734 to Gunkler and US Pat Application Publication No 20150097383 to Busse et al (Busse).
PNG
media_image1.png
695
1450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Tarquino discloses a device to secure a door. The device comprises a first rail member (top 4) secured to a door; a second rail member (bottom 4 secured to the door; a body member (1a) having a front surface, a back surface, a top surface, and a bottom surface, a plate member (1); and an interactive member (2) secured to the body member, the interactive member configured to move the plate member and the body member along the first rail member and the second rail member in response to a force applied to the interactive member having a component parallel to an axis of the body member that passes through the top surface and the bottom surface of the body member.
First, Tarquino fails to disclose that the first and second rail members have respective elongated portions and that the body member has a recess (i) defined by the back surface and one or more of the top surface and the bottom surface and (ii) configured to interact with the elongated portion of the first and second rail members in a slidable arrangement.
PNG
media_image2.png
411
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tarquino discloses a different slidable arrangement that comprises a common elongated member (3) for the first and second rail members, received into a cylindrical tube.
PNG
media_image3.png
536
1279
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Drumm teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a slidable arrangement that is comprised of a body member (3) having a recess defined by a back surface and one or more of the top surface and the bottom surface of the body member and is configured to interact with the elongated portions of a first rail member (4) and a second rail member (5) in a slidable arrangement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the slidable arrangement described by Tarquino as one defined by a recess that interact with respective elongated portions of the first and second rail members, as taught by Drumm, in order to provide an arrangement discrete from the view.
Applicant is reminded that a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art.
Second, Tarquino fails to disclose that the plate member is secured to the body member. Tarquino discloses that the plate member and the body member are a one-piece member.
PNG
media_image4.png
520
795
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Gunkler teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a body member (104) and a plate member (102) as two separate members secured to each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the body member/plate member described by Tarquino as two separate members secured to each other, as taught by Gunkler, in order to aid in the installation of the device.
Applicant is reminded that separate elements fastened together, in place of a one-piece construction, is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Third, Tarquino fails to disclose that the plate member has a through-hole or notch configured to permit at least a portion of a bolt of a lock of the door to pass through the through-hole or the notch. As shown in figs 4 and 6, in order to allow the bolt to pass, the hole plate needs to be moved away a significant distance.
PNG
media_image5.png
535
906
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Busse teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a plate member (14) with a through-hole or notch (20) configured to permit at least a portion of a bolt of a lock of the door to pass through the through-hole or the notch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plate member described by Tarquino with a through-hole or notch, as taught by Busse, in order to quickly allow the bolt to pass through since it will require less movement distance from the plate member.
As to claim 2, Tarquino, as modified by Drumm, teaches that the elongated portion of the first and second rail members have a substantially uniform cross-section.
As to claim 5, Tarquino illustrates that a length of the body member from the top surface of the body member to the bottom surface of the body member is capable of being larger than a width of the body member.
As to claim 6, Tarquino, as modified by Busse, teaches that the through-hole of the plate member is configured to permit at least a portion of a bolt of a door lock to pass through the through-hole when the body member and the plate member are positioned in a lower position such that the elongated portion of the second rail member substantially fills the second recess of the body member; and the plate member is configured to prevent any portion of a bolt of a door lock to pass through the plate member when the body member and the plate member are positioned in an upper position such that the elongated portion of the first rail member substantially fills the first recess of the body member (depending on the configuration of the device when installed).
As to claim 7, Tarquino, as modified by Gunkler, teaches that the plate member includes a first side that contacts the front surface of the body member and a second side that contacts a side surface of the body member, wherein the first side of the plate portion is substantially perpendicular to the second side to the second side of the plate portion.
As to claim 8, Gunkler teaches that the through-hole (108) of the plate member is located in the second side of the plate member.
As to claim 9, Gunkler teaches that the plate member is formed from a single piece of material that is bent to create the first side and the second side; or the plate member is formed from two or more pieces of material where the first side is formed from a first piece of material and the second side is formed from a second piece of material.
As to claim 10, Tarquino discloses that at least a portion of a top surface of the plate member is substantially coplanar with a top surface of body member; and at least a portion of a bottom surface of the plate member is substantially coplanar with a bottom surface of the body member.
As to claim 11, Tarquino, as modified by Drumm, teaches that the recess continues through a length of the body member such that the recess is defined by the back, top and bottom surfaces of the body member.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 9,303,434 to Tarquino in view of EP 0890693 to Drumm, US Pat No 11,542,734 to Gunkler, US Pat Application Publication No 20150097383 to Busse et al (Busse)
and further in view of US Pat No 3,848,908 to Rich.
As to claim 3, Tarquino, as modified by Drumm, Gunkler and Busse, teaches that the elongated portions of the first and second rail members (Drumm 4 and 5) defines front and back surfaces, wherein the back surfaces of the elongated portions are opposite the front surfaces and contact the door.
However, the combination fails to disclose that the front surfaces of the elongated portions have a greater width than back surfaces of the elongated portions.
Drumm teaches the opposite, that the back surfaces have a width greater than the front surfaces.
PNG
media_image6.png
526
1182
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Rich teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a rail member (18) that defines a front surface defining a greater width than the width of a back surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the elongated portions described by Tarquino, as modified by Drumm, Gunkler and Busse, as one that have a front surface with a width greater than the width of the back surface, as taught by Rich, since the reversal of components in a prior art reference, in this case the width dimension, where there is no disclosed significance to such reversal, is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
As to claim 4, Rich teaches that the cross section of the elongated portion is a trapezoidal in shape and the cross section of the recess is also a trapezoidal shape.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 9,303,434 to Tarquino in view of EP 0890693 to Drumm, US Pat No 11,542,734 to Gunkler, US Pat Application Publication No 20150097383 to Busse et al (Busse) and further in view of US Pat No 10,893,749 to Pifer.
Tarquino, as modified by Drumm, Gunkler and Busse, fails to disclose that the recess is a first recess defined by the back and top surfaces of the body member, further comprising a second recess defined by the back and bottom surfaces of the body member, wherein: a volume of the first recess is substantially the same as a volume of the second recess; and/or dimensions of the first recess are substantially the same as dimensions of the second recess.
The combination teaches that the recess is just one recess extending from the top surface toward the bottom surface.
PNG
media_image7.png
454
1126
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Pifer teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a body member (12, 78) that can define one full recess (fig 1) or first and second recess (fig 8) that interact with first and second rail members (18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the recess described by Tarquino, as modified by Drumm, Gunkler and Busse, as two separate recesses, as taught by Pifer, since it would be a design consideration from the user to provide respective recesses for each rail member.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 9,303,434 to Tarquino in view of EP 0890693 to Drumm, US Pat No 11,542,734 to Gunkler, US Pat Application Publication No 20150097383 to Busse et al (Busse) and further in view of US Pat Application Publication No 20150007623 to Alghamdi.
As to claims 13 and 14, Tarquino, as modified by Drumm, Gunkler, and Busse, fails to disclose that the device comprises first and second indicators formed on the elongated portions.
PNG
media_image8.png
678
1557
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Alghamdi teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a movable member (25) with an indicator (on the surface of 25, par 53) to indicate a position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the elongated portions described by Tarquino, as modified by Drumm, Gunkler and Busse, with an indicator, as taught by Alghamdi, in order to indicate the position of the device.
As to claim 15, Alghamdi teaches that the indicators are different colors (red, blue and green on the surface of 25) depending on the position of the device.
As to claim 16, Alghamdi teaches that text can be provided to indicate the position (indicia).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 9,303,434 to Tarquino in view of EP 0890693 to Drumm, US Pat No 11,542,734 to Gunkler, US Pat Application Publication No 20150097383 to Busse et al (Busse) and further in view of US Pat Application Publication No 20200046582 to Hincapie Montoya et al (Hincapie Montoya) and US Pat No 5,790,034 to Khoury.
As to claims 17 and 20, Tarquino, as modified by Drumm, Gunkler and Busse, fails to disclose that the device comprises a microcontroller configured to generate and/or process signals; and an actuator coupled to (i) the body member and/or the plate member and (ii) electronically coupled to the microcontroller, wherein the actuator is configured to change a position of the body member and the plate member with respect to the first rail member and the second rail member in response to receiving a signal from the microcontroller.
The combination discloses a manual operation of the device.
PNG
media_image9.png
409
677
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Hincapie Montoya teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an actuator (5) to move a blocking member (9) to block a bolt (7) from extending outwardly and when operated, allowing the bolt to extend outwardly.
PNG
media_image10.png
772
1608
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Khoury teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a device that can manually operate a movable member (10) or can mechanically operated by means of having a microcontroller (50) configured to generate and/or process signals (26); and an actuator (57) coupled to movable member and electronically coupled to the microcontroller. The actuator is configured to change a position of the movable member in response to receiving a signal from the microcontroller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device described by Tarquino, as modified by Drumm, Gunkler and Busse, with a microcontroller and an actuator, as taught by Hincapie Montoya and Khoury, in order to automatically operate the device.
Applicant is reminded that it has been that providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 18, Khoury teaches a transceiver (82) that is configured to receive and transmit signals, including signals generated by the microcontroller. Hincapie Montoya teaches the use of sensors (3) to sense the position of the movable member.
As to claim 19, Khoury teaches that the actuator includes a motor (57) configured to turn a shaft (58) in response to receiving a signal from the microcontroller; a pinion (16) torisionally coupled to the shaft of the motor; and a rack (18) that engages the pinion, wherein the rack is mounted to the movable member.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the drawing objection, the current amendment overcomes the previous issue.
With respect to the claim objection, the current amendment overcomes the previous issue.
With respect to the 112 2nd paragraph rejection to claims 1 and 20, the current explanation overcomes the previous issue.
With respect to the prior art rejection, the applicant argues that there is no motivation to provide the guard plate of Drumm into the device of Tarquino.
First, that is not the rejection shown above. As mentioned in the action, Tarquino discloses a cylindrical cross section shape that is introduced into a cylindrical member.
Drumm is only used to demonstrate that it is well known in the art a slidable arrangement that is comprised of a body member (3) having a recess defined by a back surface and one or more of the top surface and the bottom surface of the body member and is configured to interact with the elongated portions of a first rail member (4) and a second rail member (5) in a slidable arrangement. The providing the shape of the sliding engagement described by Drumm into the device of Tarquinio will just be a change in the shape, from cylindrical to a polygonal cross section that has no effect in the movement or function of the device.
The applicant further argues that Gunkler does not disclose the body member or the plate member as claimed. As mentioned above, Gunkler is only used to demonstrate that it is well known in the art to provide a body member and a plate member as two separate members secured to each other to aid in the installation of the device.
Finally, the applicant argues that Busse does not teach that the device has any advantage from requiring less movement distance from the plate member.
As mentioned above, Busse is only used to demonstrate that it is well known in the art to provide a plate member with a through-hole or notch configured to permit at least a portion of a bolt of a lock of the door to pass through the through-hole or the notch. In combination with the device described by Tarquino, the device can quickly allow the bolt to pass through since it will require less movement distance from the plate member, since the bolt opening is then defined and no need to move the device all the way to an end position
Since no argument is persuasive, the rejection is maintained.
Since the rejection is maintained and the examiner will not change the position shown above, in order to expedite prosecution, applicant can either look at the proposal amendment previously presented or just file an appeal brief to allow the Board of Appeals to decide.
Prosecution has been closed.
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 CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/Carlos Lugo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675
March 5, 2026