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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 63-65, 69, 76, 78-82 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ross et al. US 7536885.
Regarding claim 63, Ross discloses a touch bar assembly for releasing a bolt (15), the touch bar assembly comprising:
a touch bar (1) for actuation by a user;
an action slider (11,35) coupled to for retracting the bolt;
a motor (30) arranged to drive a linear actuator (29) between a retracted position (when touch bar pressed), a neutral position (when touch bar is at rest) and a blocking position (during delayed egress), the linear actuator coupled to the action slider by a coupling (35), wherein the linear actuator and coupling are configured such that in the blocking position retraction of the action slider is blocked by the coupling (because the action slider 11 requires actuation of coupling 35 to move, therefore when in the blocking position, action slider does not move), and the coupling couples motion of the linear actuator from the neutral position to the retracted position into retraction of the action slider to retract the bolt. (col.6 lines 37-61)
Regarding claim 64, Ross discloses the touch bar assembly of claim 63, wherein movement of the linear actuator from the blocking position to the neutral position releases the action slider for retraction of the bolt. (col.6 lines 37-61)
Regarding claim 65, Ross discloses the touch bar assembly of claim 63, wherein the coupling and linear actuator are configured with lost motion there between such that, when the linear actuator is at the neutral position, movement of the action slider by actuation of the touch bar does not move the linear actuator. (col.6 lines 37-61)
Regarding claim 69, Ross discloses the touch bar of claim 63, wherein the action slider comprises the coupling. (col.6 line 63 - col.7 line 12)
Regarding claim 76, Ross discloses the touch bar assembly of claim 63, wherein the action slider is coupled to the touch bar by cranks (pair of 4), the cranks configured such that on pushing the touch bar the cranks rotate to translate the action slider. (fig1-2b)
Regarding claim 78, Ross discloses the touch bar assembly of claim 63, further comprising the bolt (15) or a bolting mechanism including the bolt. (fig1-2b)
Regarding claim 79, Ross discloses the door (abstract, not labeled) comprising the touch bar assembly of claim 63. (fig1-2b)
Regarding claim 80, Ross discloses the touch bar assembly for releasing a bolt (15), the touch bar assembly comprising:
a touch bar (1) for actuation by a user;
an action slider (11) coupled to the touch bar for retracting the bolt;
a motor (30) arranged to drive a motor rod (29) between a retracted position (when touch bar is pushed), a neutral position (when touch bar is at rest) and a blocking position (during the delayed egress), the motor rod coupled to the action slider by a coupling (35) comprising a gate (36), wherein movement of the motor rod from the neutral position to the blocking position moves the gate to a blocking configuration (i.e. in a manner in which it will not move the action slider) blocking retraction of the action slider, and the coupling couples motion of the motor rod from the neutral position to the retracted position into retraction of the action slider to retract the bolt. (col.6 lines 37-61)
Regarding claim 81, Ross discloses the touch bar assembly of claim 80, further comprising the bolt or a bolting mechanism including the bolt. (fig1-2b)
Regarding claim 82, Ross discloses the door (abstract) comprising the touch bar assembly of claim 80.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 67-68, 94-95 are allowed.
Claims 70-75 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.
Regarding claim 94, the shaft 29 of the Ross reference is considered the linear actuator therefore there is no plausible spindle that can be referred to. Although it is known that motors comprise a spindle with a threaded portion, references of record do not teach the blocking position along with the other limitations, as well as the motor configuration as disclosed. Examiner can find no reason to combine or modify references of record without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Regarding claim 70, the brakes in the Ross reference are applied directly to the action rod not to the rotation of the spindle of the motor. Examiner can find no reason to combine or modify references of record without the use of impermissible hindsight. Claims 71-75 are objected to due to their dependency on claim 70.
Regarding claim 95, although there is a spring system in Ross, said spring system is not arranged to absorb the user force when the linear actuator is in the blocking position but rather move the latch to the latched position and works as a return spring. Examiner can find no reason to combine or modify references of record without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments about Ross address the amended language which is addressed in the above modified rejection. Examiner maintains the rejection of now amended claim 63, please see above for further explanation on how Ross reads on the amendment.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to overcome previous 112(b) rejection. The previous 112(b) rejection of claims 70-75 is moot.
New claims 94-95 are allowed in light of previously indicated allowable subject matter.
Current status of claims are as follows:
Claims 63-65,69,76,78-82 are rejected.
Claims 67-68, 94-95 are allowed.
Claims 70-75, are still objected to for being dependent on a rejected claim (claim 63).
Claims 66 and 77 are cancelled.
Claims 83-93 remain withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art is related to touch bar assemblies.
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 FARIA F. AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Christine M. Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/F.F.A./
Examiner
Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights