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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 18, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “securing means” modified by functional language “providing secure fixing” and not modified by sufficient structure. Securing means may comprise a fixing means such as a flexible, tensionable or spring loaded claw or cantilever, or a positioning means such as a positioning protrusion as described in Applicant’s specification.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “securing means” modified by functional language “providing secure fixing” and not modified by sufficient structure. Securing means may comprise a fixing means such as a flexible, tensionable or spring loaded claw or cantilever, or a positioning means such as a positioning protrusion as described in Applicant’s specification.
Claim 16 further recites the limitation “fixing means” modified by functional language “configured to lock the panel slider to the aperture” and not modified by sufficient structure. Fixing means may be a flexible, tensionable or spring loaded claw or cantilever as described in Applicant’s specification.
Claim 16 further recites the limitation “positioning means” modified by functional language “cooperating with the shape of the aperture and configured to prevent installing the panel slider in a wrong position” and not modified by sufficient structure. Positioning means is defined as a positioning protrusion as described in Applicant’s specification.
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 16-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the fixing part" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that the limitations of dependent claim 12 are repeated in lines 13-14 and again in lines 15-16 of claim 16. For examination purposes it is interpreted that instead of the repeated limitations from claim 12, Applicant intended to include the limitations from claim 12 once and also include the limitations from claim 13 that read, “wherein the panel slider comprises a fixing part cooperating with the aperture.” Claim 17 is rejected under 35 USC §112 due to dependency from claim 16.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 102188000 B1 (Lee, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses:
An elevator door arrangement (figure 4), comprising:
an elevator door panel (100);
a door sill (120), wherein the door panel is movable along the door sill and comprises at a bottom thereof at least one panel slider bracket (32) being movable in a vertically-oriented groove (122) of the door sill, wherein an opening of said groove faces the door panel such that the panel slider bracket protrudes vertically through said groove opening (figure 5); and
at least one panel slider (124) mountable to said at least one panel slider bracket and slidable in the groove, said panel slider protruding vertically through said groove opening (figure 5),
wherein the at least one panel slider bracket comprises a lateral protruding lower part (32C, 34) operably disposed inside the door sill and at least partially situated under a sill structure (122A),
wherein the boundaries along the groove of each of the at least one panel slider is confined within the boundaries along the groove of a corresponding one of the at least one panel slider bracket (the width of 124 is contained within the width of 32 along the groove, figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 2, Lee further discloses:
wherein the slider bracket is assembled to the door panel during panel manufacturing (“each of the mounting brackets 32 has a mounting surface 32A that is mounted and fixed to the inner surface of each landing door 100 by conventional welding or bolting,” page 4 of the attached machine translation, paragraph 7, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Lee further discloses:
wherein the slider bracket (32), when installed in the groove of the door sill (122), is configured to generate a panel-sill hook (figure 5).
Regarding claim 4, Lee further discloses:
wherein the slider bracket (32) has the lower part configured in such a way that when the slider bracket is installed inside the door sill through the groove, the lower part (32C, 34) is positioned below the sill structure (122A), thus forming a vertical gap (gap, annotated figure 5) between the lower part and the sill structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
424
389
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Lee, annotated by the Examiner
Regarding claim 5, Lee further discloses:
wherein the slider bracket (32) has the lower part comprising a lateral protruding extension (34 protrudes laterally) to be assembled below the sill structure inside the door sill (34 is below 122A inside sill 120).
Regarding claim 6, Lee further discloses:
wherein the lower part of the slider bracket comprises a horizontal bend for retaining the door panel against upward movement (horizontal bend shown between 34 and 32C, figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, Lee further discloses:
wherein the lateral protruding lower part (34) is configured to catch on a sill profile edge (edge of 122A, right side of figure 5) and hook the door when the door panel lifts as effect of pendulum impacts.
Regarding claim 8, Lee further discloses:
wherein the panel slider (124) is configured to limit the vertical gap between the lower part and the sill structure (the volume of the vertical gap, shown in annotated figure 5 above, is limited by the slider 124).
Regarding claim 12, Lee further discloses:
wherein the slider bracket (32) comprises an aperture (31) configured to receive the panel slider and the panel slider comprises a sliding part (sliding part, annotated figure 4) slidable in the groove of the door sill.
PNG
media_image2.png
306
220
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Lee, annotated by the Examiner
Regarding claim 13, Lee further discloses:
wherein the panel slider comprises a fixing part (fixing part, annotated figure 4) cooperating with the aperture (32).
Regarding claim 14, Lee further discloses:
wherein the fixing part comprises securing means providing secure fixing of the panel slider to the slider bracket (the securing means that provide secure fixing of the slider 124 to the bracket 32 are a structural equivalent to a fixing means comprising a flexible, tensionable or spring loaded claw or cantilever, or a positioning means such as a positioning protrusion as described in Applicant’s specification, in particular the fixing part/securing means of Lee is a positioning protrusion).
Regarding claim 15, Lee further discloses:
A method for guiding an elevator door in the elevator door arrangement according to claim 1 comprising the steps of:
assembling said at least one panel slider bracket to said elevator door panel (“each of the mounting brackets 32 has a mounting surface 32A that is mounted and fixed to the inner surface of each landing door 100 by conventional welding or bolting,” page 4 of the attached machine translation, paragraph 7, lines 1-2); and
mounting the at least one panel slider to said at least one slider bracket (“each of the mounting brackets 32…includes a horizontal surface (32B) and a vertical surface (32C) formed with a coupling mounting hole 31 to which the door shoe 124 is coupled” page 4 of the attached machine translation, paragraph 7, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 18, Lee further discloses:
wherein the slider bracket (32), when installed in the groove of the door sill (122), is configured to generate a panel-sill hook (figure 5).
Regarding claim 19, Lee further discloses:
wherein the slider bracket (32) has the lower part configured in such a way that when the slider bracket is installed inside the door sill through the groove, the lower part (34) is positioned below the sill structure (122A), thus forming a vertical gap (gap, annotated figure 5) between the lower part and the sill structure.
Regarding claim 20, Lee further discloses:
wherein the slider bracket (32) has the lower part configured in such a way that when the slider bracket is installed inside the door sill through the groove, the lower part (34) is positioned below the sill structure (122A), thus forming a vertical gap (gap, annotated figure 5) between the lower part and the sill structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are allowed. The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious all of the limitations of independent claim 9 as detailed in the Final rejection of September 18, 2025. Claims 10 and 11 depend from claim 9. Lee does not teach an articulated appendix of the panel slider configured to limit the vertical gap between the lower part and the sill structure.
Claims 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, to include the limitations of claim 13. The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious all of the limitations of independent claim 16 as detailed in the Final rejection of September 18, 2025. Claim 17 depends from claim 16. The fixing part of Lee comprises securing means equivalent to the positioning means of the securing means as described in the specification. The fixing part of Lee does not comprise both a positioning means and a fixing means, as described in the specification, as required by claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the argument on page 8 of the Remarks that Applicant did not intend to invoke 35 USC § 112(f) interpretation and the Examiner did not explicitly identify any claim limitation that invokes § 112(f), the Examiner noted on pages 9-10 of the Final Rejection of September 18, 2025 the limitations in claims 14 and 16 that meet the three-prong test for invoking § 112(f) interpretation, and has repeated those limitations for clarity under the Claim Interpretation section of the current Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 12-15, and 18-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE M MUDWILDER whose telephone number is (571)272-6068. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am - 7:30 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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at (571)272-2097. 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.
/M.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654