DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 03/28/2024.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11, 13-16, 19-21, 23-24, 29, and 31 are currently pending and have been examined below. Claims 7, 10, 12, 17-18, 22, 25-28, 30, and 32-44 are cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11, 13-16, 19-21, 23-24, and 29) in the reply filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Regarding at least figures 2-3C and 6, applicant is encouraged the use of shading for at least the door leaf to aids in understanding the invention. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(m) below.
“(m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections.”
Examiner reminds applicant of 37 C.F.R. 1.84(a)(1) which discusses “Black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings”. Figure 8 is objected because the quality of lines does not meet the ‘solid black lines’ required above.
PNG
media_image1.png
423
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 13 - “a substantially identical pocket sliding door assembly is installed adjacent an opposite edge of the doorway and facing inwardly to create a double closing sliding door”.
Claim 24 - “has a door groove in…a bottom edge”.
Claim 29 - “a motor”, “a controller”, and “to one or more sensors”. Examiner notes the specification includes motor 60, controller 61, and sensors 62, however, none of those reference numerals or structures are shown in the figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 13 of page 9, “the door carrier 50” should read --the door carrier 30--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract filed on 03/28/2024 is objected because it is not on a separate sheet.
Claim Interpretation
In line 2 of claim 9, “at least one attachment point” is brought to applicant’s attention. Claim 8, to which claim 9 depends, does not positively recite “the hooks out of the attachment points” therefore the recitation in claim 9 was interpreted such that the assembly only has one attachment point, hence the scope of the claim is clear. Examiner also notes that claim 9 does not positively recite the one door hook of the door leaf on line 3.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 16, 23, and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of claim 8, “by lifting the hooks out of the attachment points” should read --by lifting a plurality of hooks out of plurality of attachment points--.
In line 2 of claim 16, “the clearance between the top of the door leaf” should read --a clearance between a top of the door leaf--.
In lines 2-3 of claim 23, “adjacent the pinion gears” should read --adjacent to the pinion gears--.
In line 4 of claim 29, “the automation of the pocket sliding door assembly” should read --an automation of the pocket sliding door assembly--.
Appropriate correction is required. Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11, 14-16, 19-21, 23, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok et al. (KR 20150104694) (hereinafter “Seok”) in view of Poole (US 20060230684).
Claim 1
(Seok discloses) A sliding door assembly (figure 1-15) comprising:
a frame (10) configured to be installed adjacent to a doorway (intended use; the frame in figure 1 can be installed in a doorway of a building or house);
a door carrier (Annotated figure 1 below) extending substantially between a top edge and a bottom edge of the frame (Annotated figure 1 below);
at least one track (11; figure 8) contained within the frame and configured to guide the door carrier (figure 8);
a rotatable tie rod (120; figures 2-3) mounted to the door carrier on an inner side (figures 2-3) and extending substantially between the top edge and the bottom edge of the frame (figures 2-3), the tie rod having a pinion gear (top and bottom 140) at each end configured to engage with a corresponding horizontal length of rack teeth (130) at the top edge and the bottom edge respectively (figures 2-3);
wherein engagement of the pinion gears synchronises the motion of the door carrier (figures 1-3).
Seok fails to disclose:
(i) A pocket sliding door assembly comprising:
(ii) a pocket frame configured to be installed adjacent to a doorway and having a split jamb;
(iii) the door carrier extending substantially between a top edge and a bottom edge of the pocket frame;
(iv) at least one track contained within the pocket frame;
(v) the rotatable tie rod extending substantially between the top edge and the bottom edge of the pocket frame.
However, Poole teaches
(i) A pocket sliding door assembly (figure 1) comprising:
(ii) a pocket frame (Partial Annotated figure 1 below) configured to be installed adjacent to a doorway and having a split jamb (Partial Annotated figure 1 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to install the sliding door assembly of Seok to a pocket sliding door assembly of Poole for providing a hidden sliding door therefore improving the appearance of the doorway while still providing a door leaf for privacy.
Seok, as modified above, discloses
(iii-v) the door carrier extending substantially between the top edge and the bottom edge of the pocket frame;
at least one track contained within the pocket frame;
the rotatable tie rod extending substantially between the top edge and the bottom edge of the pocket frame (all these clauses are inevitably taught via the combination above).
PNG
media_image2.png
573
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1
PNG
media_image3.png
464
874
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Partial Annotated figure 1
Claim 2
(Seok, as modified above, discloses) The pocket sliding door assembly of claim 1, wherein there are no tracks running beyond the split jamb of the pocket frame (this is inevitably taught via the combination above).
Claim 3
(Seok, as modified above, discloses) The pocket sliding door assembly of claim 1, wherein an outer side of the door carrier (Annotated figure 1 above) is configured to attach to a door leaf (figure 1).
Claim 4
(Seok, as modified above, discloses) The pocket sliding door assembly of claim 3, wherein the door carrier is configured to cantilever the door leaf from within the pocket frame (Annotated figure 1 above).
Claim 5
(Seok, as modified above, discloses) The pocket sliding door assembly of claim 4, wherein engagement of the pinion gears keeps the door carrier vertically aligned during motion, thereby preventing in-plane tilting of the door leaf (figure 1; note that both pinion gears operate as the door leaf opens and closes).
Claim 6
(Seok, as modified above, discloses) The pocket sliding door assembly of claim 3, wherein the door leaf is disengageable from the door carrier, at a rear edge of said door leaf (intended use; the door leaf in figure 1 can be disengaged from the carrier as the two parts can be separated with each other).
Claim 8
(Seok, as modified above, discloses) The pocket sliding door assembly of claim 6, wherein the door leaf can be engaged or disengaged without the use of tools (intended use; the door leaf can be engaged and disengaged without tools to at least the pinion gear as shown via the engagement and disengagement of 120 and 141 in figure 4), and wherein the door leaf is kept engaged by gravity (the door leaf is at least kept engaged to part 141 by gravity) and can be disengaged by lifting the hooks out of the attachment points (intended use; figure 7 shows a vertical sliding movement of the shaft 120 via the sliding means 150; the disengaged position can be when the shaft 120 is slid away from 141).
Claim 9
(Seok, as modified above, discloses) The pocket sliding door assembly of claim 8, wherein the outer side of the door carrier presents at least one attachment point (141; figure 4) configured to engage with at least one door hook (151) of the door leaf (figure 4).
Claim 11
(Seok, as modified above, discloses) The pocket sliding door assembly of claim 3, wherein the pocket sliding door assembly is installed adjacent a doorway (Partial Annotated figure 1 above) having an overhead element (overhead 13 in Poole figure 5), and wherein the doorway is defined by the split jamb, the overhead element and a closing element that is a closing jamb or a wall (Partial Annotated figure 1 above).
Claim 14
(Seok, as modified above, discloses) The pocket sliding door assembly of claim 11, wherein the overhead element of the doorway is a flush ceiling (see 13 in Poole figure 5).
Claim 15
(Seok, as modified above, discloses) The pocket sliding door assembly of claim 11, wherein the overhead element of the doorway is a head jamb (for this claim, the overhead element was interpreted as the head jamb 12).
Claim 16
(Seok, as modified above, discloses) The pocket sliding door assembly of claim 11.
Modified Seok is silent regarding wherein the clearance between the top of the door leaf and the overhead element is: (a) between 5 mm and 30 mm, or (b) between 5 mm and 20 mm, or (c) between 5mm and 10 mm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to modify the clearance between the top of the door leaf and the overhead element as a distance: (a) between 5 mm and 30 mm, or (b) between 5 mm and 20 mm, or (c) between 5mm and 10 mm for a seamless gap between the door leaf and the overhead element thereby improving appearance and reduces any foreign elements passing through the clearance.
Claim 19
(Seok, as modified above, discloses) The pocket sliding door assembly of claim 1, wherein the at least one track is a bottom track only (figure 8).
Claim 20
(Seok, as modified above, discloses) The pocket sliding door assembly of claim 1, wherein the at least one track is a bottom track and a top track (Annotated figure 8 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
592
464
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 8
Claim 21
(Seok, as modified above, discloses) The pocket sliding door assembly of claim 1, further comprising a groove (groove in track 11; figure 8) in the at least one track, and wherein the door carrier comprises a bottom wheel (the wheel 250 shown in Partial Annotated figure 9 below; for this claim, the door carrier was interpreted as including the bottom sash where the bottom wheel is located) and/or a top wheel configured to run in the groove of the at least one track (Partial Annotated figure 9 below; note that this was interpreted as an ‘or’ clause therefore only one of the options are required to be taught by the prior art).
PNG
media_image5.png
294
821
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Partial Annotated figure 9
Claim 23
(Seok, as modified above, discloses) The pocket sliding door assembly of claim 21, further comprising one or more guide wheels (Partial Annotated figure 9 above) attached to the ends of the tie rod and adjacent the pinion gears (the guide wheel above is attached to the tie rod by way of other elements in between), the one or more guide wheels configured to run in the groove of the at least one track (Partial Annotated figure 9 above).
Claim 29
(Seok, as modified above, discloses) The pocket sliding door assembly of claim 1, further comprising a motor (110; figure 3) configured to drive the tie rod thereby moving the door carrier, and a controller (280) connected to the motor and to one or more sensors (the sensing device of the sliding door assembly that receives commands from the controller 280), wherein the controller is configured to allow for the automation of the pocket sliding door assembly (Excerpt 1 from page 6 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
80
751
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 1
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of Poole, as applied to claims 1-6, 8-9, 11, 14-16, 19-21, 23, and 29 above, in further view of DuBose et al. (US 7040056) (hereinafter “DuBose”).
Claim 13
(Seok, as modified above, discloses) The pocket sliding door assembly of claim 11.
Modified Seok fails to disclose wherein a substantially identical pocket sliding door assembly is installed adjacent an opposite edge of the doorway and facing inwardly to create a double closing sliding door.
(However, DuBose teaches) A pocket sliding door assembly (left pocket sliding assembly 10; DuBose figure 1) and a substantially identical pocket sliding door assembly (right pocket sliding assembly 10) is installed adjacent an opposite edge of a doorway (the doorway passage between the two assemblies) and facing inwardly to create a double closing sliding door (DuBose figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the pocket sliding door assembly of modified Seok with the double closing pocket sliding door assembly of DuBose for providing wider doorways and to provide accessibility to carts, wheelchairs, and larger passage equipment.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of Poole, as applied to claims 1-6, 8-9, 11, 14-16, 19-21, 23, and 29 above, in further view of Tsugmasa et al. (JP 3245490) (hereinafter “Tsugmasa”).
Claim 24
(Seok, as modified above, discloses) The pocket sliding door assembly of claim 1.
Modified Seok fails to disclose wherein the at least one track has a front end stop configured to be removable to facilitate pulling the door carrier out from the pocket frame for maintenance, and wherein the door leaf has a door groove in a top edge and/or a bottom edge configured to engage with the front end stop to align the door leaf.
(However, Tsugmasa teaches) wherein at least one track has a front end stop (4; Tsugmasa figures 1-8) configured to be removable to facilitate pulling a door carrier out from a frame for maintenance (intended use; the stops 4 guides the door leaf 3 as it moves in which the movement of the door leaf can intended for maintenance), and wherein a door leaf (3) has a door groove (5) in a top edge and/or a bottom edge (Tsugmasa figure 1) configured to engage with the front end stop to align the door leaf (Tsugmasa figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the pocket sliding door assembly of modified Seok with the front end stop of Tsugmasa for providing additional guidance to the movement of the door leaf therefore prevents derailing of the door leaf which could damage to the door leaf and track.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B PONCIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-4:00.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (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 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.
/PATRICK B. PONCIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/CATHERINE A KELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights