DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. The Restriction election received on 12/29/2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are now pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-14) and Species 2A and 2B in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 5, 6, 12, and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected invention Group I and Species 2A and 2B, respectively. In addition, claims 8 and 13-14 depend from nonelected claims 6 and 12, respectively, and are therefore withdrawn as well. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species 2A and 2B in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that neither force fitting nor adhesive joining is a process of making the claimed product. This is not found persuasive because the restriction is not about a manufacturing process, but is intended to be about the method of installation or using the product, i.e. the process of protecting a door edge.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, at line 3, the recitation “the second plurality”, is understood to mean -- the second plurality of discontinuities--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 9-11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the limitations “magnets disposed within each of the two adjacent segments” and “the second segment being free of magnets” is contradictory. Therefore, it is unclear as to where the magnets being claimed are located.
Regarding claim 11, at line 1, the recitation “wherein plural magnets” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis or creates ambiguity as to whether it is referring to the same previously recited limitation “discrete magnets”.
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 of this title, 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) 1-4, 7, and 9-11, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasser (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0166515) in view of Huck (U.S. Patent No. 10,676,113).
Regarding claim 1, Gasser teaches an edge guard (protective edge; title) capable of use for protecting door edges, the edge guard comprising: an elongate, resilient channel (10) having a cross section capable of fitting a specific door to be protected and a longitudinal direction perpendicular thereto, the channel having a first plurality of contiguous segments (see annotated figure 3 below) and a second plurality of discontinuities therebetween (annotated figure 3), whereby each segment is non- colinear with an adjacent segment (annotated figure 3).
Gasser does not specifically disclose a third plurality of discrete magnets disposed within the cross section, wherein the discontinuities are free of the discrete magnets.
Huck et al. discloses wall guard strips (abstract) a guard (206) having a third plurality of discrete magnets (32) disposed within the cross section (figure 4), wherein the discontinuities (ridge portions of 206; figure 2) are free of the discrete magnets (figure 2).
Therefore, from the teaching of Huck et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the protective edge of Gasser to include a third plurality of discrete magnets disposed within the cross section, wherein the discontinuities are free of the discrete magnets, as taught by Huck et al., in order to facilitate a quick installation, attachment, detachment, or reattachment, onto the edges of metallic devices being protected.
Regarding claim 2, Gasser teaches the cross section has a first leg (see annotated figure 3) and a second leg (annotated figure 3) joined by an apex (annotated figure 3).
Although Gasser does not specifically disclose the third plurality of magnets is disposed in the first leg with the second leg being free of the magnets, Huck et al. discloses wall guard strips (abstract) wherein the plurality of magnets is disposed in one leg (central longer leg; figure 4) but the second leg (orthogonal shorter leg; figure 4) is free of the magnets (figure 4).
Therefore, from the teaching of Huck et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the protective edge of Gasser such that the third plurality of magnets is disposed in the first leg with the second leg being free of the magnets, as taught by Huck et al., in order to optimize the placement of magnets for the optimum magnetic connection based on the design of the device being attached to, while simultaneously reducing the number of magnets to reduce costs.
Regarding claim 3, Gasser teaches the cross section has a first leg (annotated figure 3) and a second leg (annotated figure 3) joined by an apex (annotated figure 3) and defining a central plane therebetween (annotated figure 3) and at least one discontinuity of the second plurality of discontinuities is within the central plane (annotated figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Gasser teaches the cross section has a first leg (annotated figure 3) and a second leg (annotated figure 3) joined by an apex (annotated figure 3) and defining a central plane therebetween (annotated figure 3) and at least one discontinuity of the second plurality inflects adjacent segments to be biplanar (annotated figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, Gasser does not specifically disclose a J-shaped cross section and wherein the first leg has a first leg width and the second leg has a second leg width less than the first leg width.
Huck et al. discloses wall guard strips (abstract) including a J-shaped cross section (figure 4) and wherein the first leg has a first leg width (central longer leg; figure 4) and the second leg (orthogonal shorter leg; figure 4) has a second leg width less than the first leg width (figure 4).
Therefore, from the teaching of Huck et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the protective edge of Gasser to have a J-shaped cross section and wherein the first leg has a first leg width and the second leg has a second leg width less than the first leg width, as taught by Huck et al., in order to provide an optimal shape depending on the shape of the desired protection coverage of the protected device.
Regarding claim 9, Gasser teaches a longitudinally elongate edge guard (protective edge; title) capable of use for protecting door edges, the edge guard comprising: a resilient channel (10) having a cross section with a first leg (annotated figure 3) and a second leg (annotated figure 3) joined by an apex (annotated figure 3) and defining a channel therebetween (annotated figure 3) capable of fitting a specific door to be protected, the channel having a plurality of n contiguous segments (first plurality of contiguous segments; annotated figure 3) and a plurality of n-1 discontinuities therebetween (second plurality of discontinuities; annotated figure 3) whereby first and second adjacent segments lie in two different central planes (annotated figure 3).
Gasser does not specifically disclose a plurality of n-1 discontinuities being free of any magnet, and plural discrete magnets disposed within each of the two adjacent segments.
Huck et al. discloses wall guard strips (abstract) a guard (206) including a plurality of n-1 discontinuities being free of any magnet (as illustrated, the ridge portions of 206 are free of the discrete magnets; figure 2), and plural discrete magnets (32) disposed within each of the two adjacent segments (in the combination, it would have been obvious to dispose the magnets of Huck et al. within each of the two adjacent segments of Gasser, the optimum magnetic connection based on the design of the device being attached to).
Therefore, from the teaching of Huck et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the protective edge of Gasser to include a plurality of n-1 discontinuities being free of any magnet, and plural discrete magnets disposed within each of the two adjacent segments, as taught by Huck et al., in order to optimize the placement of magnets for the optimum magnetic connection based on the design of the device being attached to, while simultaneously reducing the number of magnets to reduce costs.
Regarding claim 10, Gasser teaches a third segment adjacent to the second segment having a common central plane (as illustrated, there are first second and third segments having the common central plane; annotated figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, Gasser does not specifically disclose the plural magnets are disposed in the first segment and the third segment, the second segment being free of magnets.
Huck et al. discloses wall guard strips (abstract) wherein the plural magnets are disposed in the first segment and the third segment (segments of 206 against 204), the second segment (ridge segment of 206) being free of magnets (figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
424
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited patents listed on the included form PTO-892 further show the state of the art with respect to edge guards in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571) 270-3238. 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.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633