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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims of Group 2 are dependent upon the claims of claim 1. This is not found persuasive because the restriction is between an apparatus and process. Although the process claims require all the particulars of the apparatus claims, the apparatus claims do not require all the particulars of the process claims rendering the claims distinct from one another.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 and 8-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ford et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0275679).
Regarding claim 1, Ford et al. discloses a pocket door frame (1, Fig. 13), comprising a back frame portion (100, 200 rear portions); and a front frame portion (100, 200), wherein each of the back frame portion and the front frame portion have a first vertical support (100) and a second vertical support (100).
Regarding claim 2, Ford et al. discloses the back frame portion and the front frame portion can be made of composite material, wood, steel and reinforced plastic (Para [0135]).
Regarding claim 3, Ford et al. discloses the first support (100) and the second support (100) are constructed of the same material (Para [0002]) as the back frame portion (100, 200) and the front frame portion (100, 200).
Regarding claim 5, Ford et al. discloses a plurality of slats (200) between the first vertical support (100) and the second vertical support (100, Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 6, Ford et al. discloses the slats (200) are made of the same material as the back frame portion and the front frame portion (Para [0002]).
Regarding claim 8, Ford et al. discloses the slats are at least one of screwed into the vertical supports via brackets (1000, Para [0106]).
Regarding claim 9, Ford et al. discloses a track or lip (101, 102) disposed on the first support and the second support to assist in securely holding the slats (Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 10, Ford et al. discloses wherein the slats (200) are adjustable along the track or lip (Para [0110]) before being adhered to the track or lip.
Regarding claim 11, Ford et al. discloses comprising a middle support (4, Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 12, Ford et al. discloses the middle support (4) is adhered to the second vertical support (100).
Regarding claim 13, Ford et al. discloses comprising a header (Header, Reproduced Fig. 13), which disposed at the top of the first support and the second support.
PNG
media_image1.png
727
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Ford et al. discloses the header (Header) is pre-sized for the installation (Reproduced, Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 15, Ford et al. discloses the header further comprises a horizontal support (Extended Portion, Reproduced Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 16, Ford et al. discloses a doorstop (5) attached to the pocket door frame (Figs. 16-17)
Regarding claim 19, Ford et al. discloses a pocket door frame (1, Fig. 13) to be used in the installation of pocket doors with a size larger than the size of the pocket door frame, comprising a header (Header) having an extended header portion (Extended Portion, Reproduced Fig. 13) extends past a back end of the pocket door frame, wherein the extended header portion is universally sized (Para [0067]), to be cut to a specific size in situ.
Regarding claim 20, Ford et al. discloses the extended header portion (Extended Portion) includes at least one indicator (length and width of the Header) of what size is appropriate for various pocket doors.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0275679).
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Ford et al. discloses wherein the first and second supports (100) and the slats (200) and the second support (100) are constructed of from a range of different materials (Para [0135]) but does not necessarily disclose that the materials of the supports being different than the back frame portion and the front frame portion. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to construct any portions of the frame from different materials for strength, flexibility, aesthetic and cost purposes, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from using different materials to construct different portions of a frame as a matter of design choice.
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 JAMES J BUCKLE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm EST.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 5712726754. 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.
/JAMES J BUCKLE JR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights