DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to the claims filed on January 26, 2026.
The replacement figure filed January 26, 2026 has been approved.
The amendments to the specification filed January 26, 2026 have been approved.
Status of claims: claims 4 and 11 are cancelled; claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12-20 are hereby examined below.
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 § 103
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 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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0056227 to Lin in view of US 8402606 to Tsai in view of US 8079179 to Lemming.
Lin discloses a slider door system comprising:
a header 1 containing a track system 12; (see FIGS. 3 and 9)
a stationary panel 51 fixedly connected to the header; (see FIGS. 4 and 9)
a footer opposite the header, (see annotated FIG. 9 below) and
a sliding door 52 positioned at least partially below the header, the sliding door including a bracket 2 that extends up into the track system of the header. (see FIGS. 5A and 9)
[AltContent: textbox (footer)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
580
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lin fails to disclose 1) the track system contains at least one soft close mechanism; 2) wherein a length of the stationary panel is substantially the same as a length of the header; 3) wherein the length of the header is less than a length of the footer.
Tsai teaches of a top hung sliding door track with a soft close mechanism 40,50. (see FIGS. 1-3 and 8)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of the Lin header to include a soft close mechanism, as taught by Tsai, in order “to reduce the moving speed of the door panel and to prevent the door panel and the door frame from being damaged and from causing noise.” (see col. 5 of Tsai)
Lemming teaches of a header 13 whose length does not extend entirely above a door opening 11. (see FIGS. 5 and 6; Also note a length of the Lemming sliding door 12 is substantially the same as a length of the header 13 and the length of the Lin sliding door is substantially the same as the length of the Lin stationary door.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the Lin header so that it does not extend entirely above the door opening (the door opening is closed off in FIG. 9 above by sliding door 52) and swap the Lin sliding door bracket with the bracket 16 taught by Lemming with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize any blocking of the entrance into/ and out of the bathing area through the door opening, to minimize injury of a user striking the header when passing through the door opening, to minimize material costs of the header, as well as to provide a “much more aesthetically appealing” door system. (see col. 1 of Lemming)
Furthermore, by combing the teachings of Lemming with Lin, Lin, as applied above, discloses wherein a length of the stationary pane is substantially the same as a length of the header and wherein the length of the header is less than a length of the footer. (claim 1)
Lin, as applied above, further discloses wherein the track system guides the bracket and sliding door along the header. (see FIG. 9 above) (claim 2) and wherein the bracket selectively engages the at least one soft close mechanism in the header as the sliding door is opened or closed. (see FIG. 9 above and FIG. 6 of Lemming) (claim 3)
Lin, as applied above, further discloses wherein the stationary panel is at least partially positioned below the header. (see FIG. 9 above) (claim 5)
Lin, as applied above, further discloses wherein the sliding door at least partially overlaps the stationary panel on one side of the slider door system. (see FIG. 9 above) (claim 6)
Lin, as applied above, further discloses wherein the sliding door slides in a direction parallel with the stationary panel to open, and wherein the sliding door slides from a first end to a second end of the footer. (see Fig. 9 above) (claim 7)
Lin discloses a slider door system comprising:
a header 1 containing a track system 12, (see FIG. 9 above) the header extending from a first end to a second end;
a stationary panel 51 fixedly connected to the header,
a footer opposite the header, (see FIG. 9 above) the footer extending from a first end to a second end, wherein the first end of the header and the first end of the footer are vertically aligned; and
a sliding door 52 positioned at least partially below the header and at least partially above the footer, the sliding door includes a bracket 12 that extends up into the track system of the header.
Lin fails to disclose 1) the track system contains at least one soft close mechanism; 2) wherein the second end of the footer extends farther than the second end of the header such that the second end of the footer and the second end of the header are not vertically aligned; and 3) wherein the bracket selectively engages the at least one soft close mechanism in the header as the sliding door opens and closes.
Tsai teaches of a top hung sliding door track with a soft close mechanism 40,50. (see FIGS. 1-3 and 8)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of the Lin header to include a soft close mechanism, as taught by Tsai, in order “to reduce the moving speed of the door panel and to prevent the door panel and the door frame from being damaged and from causing noise.” (see col. 5 of Tsai)
Furthermore, by combing the teachings of Tsai with Lin, Lin, as applied above, further discloses wherein the bracket selectively engages the at least one soft close mechanism in the header as the sliding door opens and closes.
Lemming teaches of a header 13 whose length does not extend entirely above a door opening 11. (see FIGS. 5 and 6; Also note a length of the Lemming sliding door 12 is substantially the same as a length of the header 13 and the length of the Lin sliding door is substantially the same as the length of the Lin stationary door.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the Lin header so that it does not extend entirely above the door opening (the door opening is closed off in FIG. 9 by the sliding door 52) and swap the Lin sliding door bracket with the bracket 16 taught by Lemming with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize any blocking of the entrance into/ and out of the bathing area through the door opening, to minimize injury of a user striking the header when passing through the door opening, to minimize material costs of the header, as well as to provide a “much more aesthetically appealing” door system. (see col. 1 of Lemming)
Furthermore, by combing the teachings of Lemming with Lin, Lin, as applied above, discloses wherein the second end of the footer extends farther than the second end of the header such that the second end of the footer and the second end of the header are not vertically aligned. (claim 9)
Lin, as applied above, further discloses wherein the track system guides the bracket and sliding door along the header (see FIG. 9 above) (claim 10), wherein the sliding door is positioned below the header (see FIG. 9 above) (claim 12), wherein the sliding door at least partially overlaps with the stationary panel on one side of the sliding door system, (see FIG. 9 above) (claim 13), wherein the sliding door slides in a direction parallel with and toward the stationary panel to open (see FIG. 9 above) (claim 14).
Claims 8 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Tsai in view of Lemming, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, in further view of US 10206542 to Minkovich et al. (hereinafter “Minkovich”)
Lin, as applied above, further discloses wherein the sliding door engages with the footer, but fails to dislose the engagement is via a plurality of footer brackets attached to the sliding door.
Minkovich teaches of a sliding door that engages with a footer 20 via a plurality of footer brackets 12 attached to the sliding door 16. (see FIG. 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Lin footer with the footer taught by Minkovich and include a plurality of footer brackets with the Lin sliding door, as taught by Minkovich, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to further assist with guidance and sliding of the sliding door. (claims 8 and 15)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Tsai in view of Lemming, as applied to claim 9 above, in further view of US 20130167444 to Ryden et al. (hereinafter “Ryden”).
Lin, as applied above, discloses at least one soft close mechanism in the header, but fails to disclose wherein the footer comprises a second at least one soft close mechanism.
Ryden teaches of a soft close mechanism 29 with a footer 17. (see FIGS. 2 and 3a)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a soft close mechanism with the Lin footer as taught by Ryden with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent the door from slamming during closing, to reduce noise during movement of the door as well as since
since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (claim 16)
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Lemming.
Lin discloses a slider door system comprising:
a header 1; (see FIG. 9 above)
a stationary panel 51 fixedly connected to the header,
a footer opposite the header; (see FIG. 9 above)
a sliding door 52 positioned below the header, and engages with the header and the footer.
Lin fails to disclose 1) wherein a length of the stationary panel is substantially the same as a length of the header, and 2) wherein the length of the header is less than a length of the footer.
Lemming teaches of a header 13 whose length does not extend entirely above a door opening 11. (see FIGS. 5 and 6; Also note a length of the Lemming sliding door 12 is substantially the same as a length of the header 13 and the length of the Lin sliding door is substantially the same as the length of the Lin stationary door.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the Lin header so that it does not extend entirely above the door opening (the door opening is closed off in FIG. 9 above by sliding door 52) and swap the Lin sliding door bracket with the bracket 16 taught by Lemming with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize any blocking of the entrance into/ and out of the bathing area through the door opening, to minimize injury of a user striking the header when passing through the door opening, to minimize material costs of the header, as well as to provide a “much more aesthetically appealing” door system. (see col. 1 of Lemming)
Furthermore, by combing the teachings of Lemming with Lin, Lin, as applied above, discloses wherein a length of the stationary panel is substantially the same as a length of the header, and wherein the length of the header is less than a length of the footer. (claim 17)
Lin, as applied above, further discloses wherein the sliding door comprises a bracket that extends up into a track system 12 of the header 1. (see FIGS. 3 and 9) (claim 20)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Lemming, as applied to claim 17 above, in further view of Tsai.
Lin, as applied above, discloses wherein the header contains a track system, but fails to disclose the header includes at least one soft close mechanism.
Tsai teaches of a top hung sliding door track with a soft close mechanism 40,50. (see FIGS. 1-3 and 8)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of the Lin header to include a soft close mechanism, as taught by Tsai, in order “to reduce the moving speed of the door panel and to prevent the door panel and the door frame from being damaged and from causing noise.” (see col. 5 of Tsai)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Lemming, as applied to claim 17 above, in further view of Ryden.
Lin, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the footer contains at least one soft close mechanism.
Ryden teaches of a soft close mechanism 29 with a footer 17. (see FIGS. 2 and 3a)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a soft close mechanism with the Lemming footer as taught by Ryden with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent the door from slamming during closing, to reduce noise during movement of the door as well as since
since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (claim 19)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 2026 are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS MENEZES whose telephone number is (571)272-5225. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8-5 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Cahn can be reached on 571-270-5616. 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.
/Marcus Menezes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634