DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to the claims filed on April 27, 2026 and the RCE filed May 19, 2026.
The IDS filed May 19, 2026 has been reviewed.
Status of claims: claims 4 and 11 are cancelled; claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12-22 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 19, 2026 has been entered.
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, 12-14, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0056227 to Lin in view of US 8079179 to Lemming.
Lin discloses a slider door system comprising:
a header 1,3 containing a track system 12 (see FIGS. 3 and 9) and at least one soft close mechanism 6; (see FIGS. 2, 5A, 5B, paragraph [0021] of Lin; note the Lin soft close mechanism is, like applicant’s soft close mechanism, “configured to prevent the shower door 25 from slamming closed.” (see paragraph [0012] of applicant’s specification))
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) 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.
Lemming teaches of a header 13 whose length does not extend entirely above a door opening 11. (see FIGS. 5 and 6)
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), thus forming the length of the Lin header to be substantially the same length as the Lin stationary panel 52 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 FIGS. 5A,5B) (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 1,3 containing a track system 12, (see FIG. 9 above) and at least one soft close mechanism 6; (see FIGS. 2, 5A, 5B, paragraph [0021] of Lin; note the Lin soft close mechanism is, like applicant’s soft close mechanism, “configured to prevent the shower door 25 from slamming closed.” (see paragraph [0012] of applicant’s specification)) the header extending from a first end to a second end, and the at least one soft close mechanism positioned proximate at least one of the first end or the second end of the header; (see FIGS. 5A,5B)
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;
a sliding door 52 positioned at least partially below the header and at least partially above the footer, the sliding door includes a bracket 2 that extends up into the track system of the header;
wherein the bracket selectively engages the at least one soft close mechanism in the header as the sliding door opens or closes.
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 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.
Lemming teaches of a header 13 whose length does not extend entirely above a door opening 11. (see FIGS. 5 and 6)
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), thus forming the length of the Lin header to be substantially the same length as the Lin stationary panel 52 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).
Lin, as applied above, further discloses wherein the bracket includes a header connection portion 21 that engages the at least one soft close mechanism at a first end of the header, (the first end of the header is illustrated in Lin FIGS. 5A, 5B) and wherein the bracket transfers a soft close motion from the at least one soft close mechanism to the sliding door. (Note: the soft close mechanism in FIGS. 5A, 5B is positioned such that engagement with the bracket occurs when the sliding door is near the closed position. Further, engagement of the header connection portion 21 with element 62 of the soft close mechanism 6 causes transfer of a soft close motion (pivoting of element 62; see [0021]) from the at least one soft close mechanism to the sliding door.) (claim 21)
Lin, as applied above, further discloses a header bracket 1 including an enclosure compartment 13 and a door compartment, wherein the enclosure compartment engages the stationary panel and provides stability to the stationary panel, and wherein the door compartment guides a portion of the sliding door and provides stability to the sliding door. (see FIGS. 1 and 4) (claim 22)
Claims 8 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin 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 disclose 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 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, 18 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 1,3; (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)
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), thus forming the length of the Lin header to be substantially the same length as the Lin stationary panel 52 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 header contains a track system 12 and at least one soft close mechanism 6. (see FIGS. 2, 5A, 5B, and paragraph [0021]) (claim18)
Lin, as applied above, further discloses wherein the sliding door comprises a bracket 2 that extends up into a track system 12 of the header 1. (see FIGS. 3 and 9) (claim 20)
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 April 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the applicant’s response filed April 27, 2026, the applicant contends:
PNG
media_image2.png
144
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted in the rejection above, Lemming teaches of a header 13 whose length does not extend entirely above a door opening 11. (see FIGS. 5 and 6)
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), thus forming the length of the Lin header to be substantially the same length as the Lin stationary panel 52 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)
Additionally, Lemming teaches that a length of panel 12 is substantially the same as a length of the header 13. Therefore, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 7:30 -4 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
Prosecution Insights