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 from the response filed on 25 June 2025 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
Applicant’s argument, page 5, line 7-17; clarification in apparatus of the instant application and its intended use on a door latch assembly appears to sufficiently resolve associated 112 rejections concerning intended use and are subsequently withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument, page 5, line 18-22; no discernable “edge” defines a pivot axis which would suffice as a hinge axis about which an element pivots. Broadly, a hinge is present in some form and any hinge will suffice until otherwise structurally clarified. Further, there appears to be no discernable edge that makes contact as a cam surface. As written, the claim is unclear as to what the applicant requires. See also drawing objection as the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined and the claimed language is not depicted in figures.
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive, 112 rejection is maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “extension bar comprises an angled or protruding proximal edge that acts as a hinge or cam surface” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-17 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites “the extension bar comprises an angled or protruding proximal edge that acts as a hinge or cam surface”.
It is unclear as to what structural relationship or functionality of the extension bar Applicant intends to convey with such limitations; while the extension bar is indeed pivoted about a pivot or “hinge” axis, it unclear as to how a standalone protruding edge of the extension bar itself can constitute a “hinge” or a “cam surface”.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brammer, JR.et al. (US 9,528,305).
Regarding claim 1, Brammer, JR.et al. discloses an entry door extension handle cooperable with a door latch assembly, the entry door extension handle comprising:
a main bracket (16) securable to the door latch assembly;
an extension bar (32) connected to the main bracket; and
an auxiliary bracket assembly (30) connected to an end of the extension bar opposite from the main bracket,
wherein the extension bar is pivotable between a closed position (Fig.2) and an open position (Fig.3), wherein in the open position, the extension bar pivots the main bracket to an unlocked position, and wherein the auxiliary bracket assembly includes an auxiliary bracket configured for pivoting with the main bracket and the extension bar (Fig.1), and wherein the extension bar comprises a top end and a bottom end, wherein the main bracket is disposed on the top end of the extension bar, and wherein the main bracket comprises a plate portion that either overlies (sandwiched the handle at 36,38 Fig.3) or replaces a door handle of the door latch assembly.
PNG
media_image1.png
160
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure taken from Brammer, JR.et al. (US 9,528,305)
Regarding claim 4, Brammer, JR.et al. discloses the entry door extension handle (32), wherein the auxiliary bracket assembly (30) comprises a base plate securable to an entry door (C.4, 30-33), and wherein the auxiliary bracket is coupled with and pivotable relative to the base plate (Fig. 1, 2, and 3).
Regarding claim 11, Brammer, JR.et al. discloses the entry door extension handle (32), wherein the extension bar comprises an angled or protruding proximal edge that acts as a hinge (hinge about 58) or cam surface.
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brammer, JR.et al. in view of Norris (US 9,145,713).
Regarding claim 2, Brammer, JR.et al. discloses the entry door extension handle, wherein the door latch assembly comprises a door handle (16), when the main bracket comprises an element that overlies the door handle.
Brammer, JR.et al. fails to disclose wherein the door latch assembly comprises a paddle-style door handle, wherein the main bracket comprises a flat plate.
Norris teaches a paddle-style door handle, main bracket comprises a flat plate for the purpose of operating a latch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extension handle disclosed by Brammer, JR.et al. to be used with a paddle-style door handle, wherein main bracket comprises a flat plate, as taught by Norris, for the expected benefit of utilizing the mechanism with a conventional paddle-style door handle, providing for greater utility of the extension handle.
Regarding claim 3, Brammer, JR et al. discloses an entry door extension handle (32), wherein when the door latch assembly comprises a door handle (16), the main bracket comprises a flat plate that replaces the door handle.
Claim 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brammer, JR.et al. in view of Weinerman (US 5,595,076).
Regarding claims 5 Brammer, JR.et al. discloses the entry door extension handle (32), wherein when the door latch assembly includes a door latch.
Brammer, JR.et al. does not disclose wherein the door latch assembly comprises a main door latch and an auxiliary door latch spaced from the main door latch, the main bracket is cooperable with the main door latch and the auxiliary bracket is cooperable with the auxiliary door latch.
Weinerman teaches a door latch assembly including a main door latch (1000) and an auxiliary door latch (1100) spaced from the main door latch, a main bracket is cooperable with the main door latch and the auxiliary bracket is cooperable with the auxiliary door latch for the purpose of providing plural point latching.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify extension handle disclosed by Brammer, JR.et al to be used with door latch assembly comprising a main door latch and an auxiliary door latch spaced from the main door latch, as taught by Weinerman, for the expected benefit of utilizing the mechanism with a door latch providing plural point latching, providing for more secure latching of the door.
Regarding claims 6, Brammer, JR.et al. discloses the entry door extension handle wherein the main bracket (16) and the auxiliary bracket (30) are L-shaped brackets (Fig.4, right angle connection) that connect upper and lower latch-engaging grips (94 upper and lower portions).
Regarding claims 7, Brammer, JR.et al. discloses the entry door extension handle, wherein the upper and lower latch-engaging grips comprise respective flat plates (90, Fig.8) that overlie (space 38 for handle front and back) the main and auxiliary door latches, respectively.
Regarding claim 8, Brammer, JR.et al. discloses the entry door extension handle, wherein the upper and lower latch-engaging grips comprise an angled edge (91, Fig.8) that locks into the main and auxiliary door latches, respectively, as an actuation hinge.
Regarding claim 9, Brammer, JR.et al. discloses the entry door extension handle, wherein the upper and lower latch-engaging grips each comprises an elongated finger (93) that acts as a stopper to limit a pivot range of the extension bar once the extension bar is pivoted to the closed position.
Regarding claims 10, Brammer, JR.et al. fails to disclose the extension handle wherein the upper and lower latch-engaging grips and the extension bar are formed of a monolithic molded or extruded piece.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extension handle disclosed by Brammer, JR. et al. wherein the upper and lower grips and the extension bar are a monolithic molded or extruded piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983).
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brammer, JR.et al. in view of Minix et al. (US 2015/0001859).
Regarding claim 12, Brammer, JR.et al. fails to disclose the entry door extension handle wherein the main bracket comprises a cylindrical aperture to accommodate a main latch key lock.
Minix et al. teaches a door handle wherein a main bracket comprises a cylindrical aperture to accommodate a main latch key lock for the purpose of allowing the latch assembly to be securely locked to prevent unauthorized opening of the cargo door without a key, such key lock mechanisms are well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extension handle disclosed by Brammer, JR.et al wherein the main bracket comprises a cylindrical aperture to accommodate a main latch key lock, as taught by Minix et al., in order to securely lock and prevent unauthorized opening of the door without a key.
Claims 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brammer, JR.et al. in view of McBain (US 5,193,863) further inview of Minix et al. (US 2015/0001859).
Regarding claim 13-17, Brammer, JR.et al. discloses the entry door extension handle cooperable with a door latch assembly that locks and unlocks an entry door, the entry door extension handle comprising:
an extension bar (32);
a main bracket (16) securable to the door latch assembly and connected to one end of the extension bar (30), wherein the main bracket is pivotable with the door latch assembly; and
an auxiliary bracket connected to an opposite end of the extension bar, the auxiliary bracket being pivotally securable to the entry door (Fig.1),
wherein the extension bar is pivotable between a closed position(Fig.2) and an open position (Fig.3), wherein in the open position, the extension bar pivots the main bracket to displace the door latch assembly to an unlocked position.
Brammer, JR.et al. does not disclose: wherein the entry door extension handle terminates at one end at the main bracket and at an opposite end at the auxiliary bracket.
McBain teaches wherein the entry door extension handle terminates at one end at the main bracket and at an opposite end at the auxiliary bracket for the purpose of providing convenient attachment to operate a door latch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brammer, JR.et al. with wherein the entry door extension handle terminates at one end at the main bracket and at an opposite end at the auxiliary bracket.as taught by McBain for the expected benefit of providing convenient attachment to operate a door latch.
Regarding claims 14, Brammer, JR.et al. discloses the entry door extension handle (32), wherein when the door latch assembly includes a door latch.
Brammer, JR.et al. does not disclose wherein the door latch assembly comprises a main door latch and an auxiliary door latch spaced from the main door latch, the main bracket is cooperable with the main door latch and the auxiliary bracket is cooperable with the auxiliary door latch.
Weinerman teaches a door latch assembly including a main door latch (1000) and an auxiliary door latch (1100) spaced from the main door latch, a main bracket is cooperable with the main door latch and the auxiliary bracket is cooperable with the auxiliary door latch for the purpose of providing plural point latching.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify extension handle disclosed by Brammer, JR.et al to be used with door latch assembly comprising a main door latch and an auxiliary door latch spaced from the main door latch, as taught by Weinerman, for the expected benefit of utilizing the mechanism with a door latch providing plural point latching, providing for more secure latching of the door.
Regarding claim, 15 Brammer, JR.et al. discloses the entry door extension handle wherein the main bracket (16) and the auxiliary bracket (30) are L-shaped brackets (Fig.4, right angle connection) that connect upper and lower latch-engaging grips (94 upper and lower portions).
Regarding claims 16, Brammer, JR.et al. discloses the entry door extension handle, wherein the upper and lower latch-engaging grips comprise respective flat plates (90, Fig.8) that overlie (space 38 for handle front and back) the main and auxiliary door latches, respectively.
Regarding claim 17, Brammer, JR.et al. fails to disclose the extension handle wherein the upper and lower latch-engaging grips and the extension bar are formed of a monolithic molded or extruded piece.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extension handle disclosed by Brammer, JR. et al. wherein the upper and lower grips and the extension bar are a monolithic molded or extruded piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brammer, JR.et al. in view of McBain (US 5,193,863).
Regarding claim 18, Brammer, JR.et al. discloses a method of retrofitting an entry door extension handle on an entry door with an existing door latch assembly, the method comprising:
attaching a main bracket (16) to an end of an extension bar (Fig.1);
securing the main bracket to the existing door latch assembly (Fig.1);
attaching an auxiliary bracket (30) to an opposite end of the extension bar (Fig.1);
connecting a base plate to the entry doorFig.1); and
pivotally connecting the auxiliary bracket to the base plate (Fig.2 and 3).
Brammer, JR.et al. does not disclose:
McBain teaches such that the entry door extension handle terminates at one end at the main bracket and at an opposite end at the auxiliary bracket; for the purpose of providing convenient attachment to operate a door latch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brammer, JR.et al. with such that the entry door extension handle terminates at one end at the main bracket and at an opposite end at the auxiliary bracket; as taught by McBain for the expected benefit of providing convenient attachment to operate a door latch.
Regarding claim 19, Brammer, JR.et al. discloses the method wherein the step of connecting the base plate to the entry door comprises drilling holes ( Fig.4, about 52) in the entry door with a template, and securing the base plate with connectors (52 fasteners) through the holes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as it may affect the patentability of applicant’s claimed invention is listed on the attached 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 Thomas L. Neubauer whose telephone number is 571.272.4864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. Fulton can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T. L. N./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675