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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statement of 05/02/2024 has been received and reviewed.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is replete with images that are blank when describing the shape of the members as seen in the image produced below. Please amend and describe the shape (for example, a V shape).
PNG
media_image1.png
133
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 5, “to be device frame” should be “to the device frame”.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3, and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 recite limitations of a shape using an image that cannot be rendered. See image below. It is unclear what is intended with these limitations. The specification has the same error and does not clarify. Is the intention to describe the entire shape of the element, or to describe a portion of the element that has a certain shape? Examiner will interpret these limitations as having a full shape (unbroken).
PNG
media_image2.png
227
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 7-11 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20190048618 to McKibben.
Regarding claim 1, McKibben discloses:
An exit device (fig 1), comprising: a device frame (130) inserted into a door panel (80, via fasteners that mount 101 into 82); a damper part (166) inserted into the device frame (fig 2) and provided to absorb and mitigate impulsive power generated according to the operation of pushing parts (paragraph 0075, mitigates the impulsive power during the deactuation); the pushing parts (136) provided at both sides of the damper part to be pressable by pressure applied by a user (see fig 2 and paragraph 0061); a slider (122) provided to slidingly reciprocate along the device frame by the pushing parts at another side (bottom side, see fig 2); and a slide bar (144) coupled to the slider at one side (left side, see fig 2) and provided to have its other side thereof coupled to a deadbolt (152) of a door (82) locking/unlocking the door.
Regarding claim 2, McKibben discloses:
The exit device of claim 1, wherein the device frame has frame reinforcing members (fasteners seen in 117, fig 1) each having a shape (see 112 rejection above) being coupled to both inner sides of a frame member (117) having a shape (see 112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 5, McKibben discloses:
The exit device of claim 1, wherein the slider comprises: a slider body (body of 141) having a shape (see rejection above); and a rod joining piece (118) having a vertical rod joining hole (top hole of 118 that curves along the front and top portion seen in fig 3) provided at an end of the slider body (top end of 141), the vertical rod joining hole being perpendicularly bent along a forward direction (fig 3).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190048618 to McKibben in view of EP 2439363 to El.
Regarding claim 3, McKibben does not explicitly disclose:
The exit device of claim 1, wherein the damper part comprises: a damper plate provided with a slide long hole having a rack gear at a mid-portion; a decelerator having a pinion gear interlocking with the rack gear and provided to decelerate rotation of the pinion gear; a fixed buffer part separated from the damper plate and fixed to the device frame, the fixed buffer part being provided with a buffer member at each corner having a shape; and a movable buffer part facing into and contacting the fixed buffer part of the buffer member and having a buffer member corresponding to both sides of the damper plate, respectively.
However, El teaches that it is well known in the art for: the damper part comprises: a damper plate (6) provided with a slide long hole (31) having a rack gear (34) at a mid-portion (fig 1); a decelerator (21) having a pinion gear (35) interlocking with the rack gear and provided to decelerate rotation of the pinion gear (fig 1); a fixed buffer part (41) separated from the damper plate (fig 2) and fixed to the device frame (2), the fixed buffer part being provided with a buffer member (39, 40) at each corner having a shape (see 112 rejection above); and a movable buffer part (3) facing into and contacting the fixed buffer part of the buffer member and having a buffer member corresponding to both sides of the damper plate, respectively (figs 2-4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of El into McKibben at least because doing so would provide a compact damping system to fit in different desirable situations, as taught by McKibben in figures 29-32 of having a rack and pinion gear damping system as an alternative.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190048618 to McKibben in view of US 6820905 to Haeck.
Regarding claim 12, McKibben discloses:
A door lock (100) of an exit device (101), wherein the exit device comprises a slider (122) being installed on a door panel (via 111) to be pressable by pressure applied by a user (via 132 and 136) and being provided to slidingly reciprocate along the device frame by pushing parts (136); a slide bar (141) coupled to the slider at one side (fig 2); and another side of the slide bar being coupled to a deadbolt (152) of a door (82) locking/unlocking the door.
McKibben does not explicitly disclose: The door lock comprising: a brake piece installed on one side of the door lock, so as to restrict or allow movements of the deadbolt.
However, Haeck teaches that it is well known in the art for a door lock to comprise a brake piece (318) installed on one side of the door lock, so as to restrict or allow movements of the deadbolt (210, see figs 17a-c). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Haeck into McKibben at least because doing so would provide additional safety and control over the position of the deadbolt.
Regarding claim 13, McKibben in view of Haeck discloses:
The door lock of an exit device of claim 12, wherein the brake piece is rotatably fixed by a rotating part (344, Haeck), the rotating part being formed to be adjacent to the slide bar (204), wherein the brake piece contacts a protrusion (328) in a region adjacent to the rotating part (fig 17c), the protrusion being provided on the slide bar at an end portion of the slide bar body along a direction of the deadbolt (fig 17c), and wherein the brake piece makes vertical rotating movements along the rotating part according to back-and-forth movements of the slide bar, and wherein, when the slide bar does not move back and forth, and end or part of the brake piece supports the deadbolt, so as to restrict the movement of the deadbolt (see movement between figs 17a-c).
Regarding claim 14, McKibben in view of Haeck discloses:
The door lock of an exit device of claim 12, wherein a thickness of the brake piece increases along a direction of the rotating part (see fig 17a, thickness increases from the bottom to the center).
Regarding claim 15, McKibben in view of Haeck discloses:
The door lock of an exit device of claim 13, wherein a thickness of the brake piece increases along a direction of the rotating part (see fig 17a, thickness increases from the bottom to the center)..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to.
Claims 6-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/Y.S./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675