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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed January 5, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-3 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments about the teachings of KR 20210001438 U (hereinafter KR1438) [Note: paragraph numbers cited are from the Espacenet machine translation previously attached], the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of broadly claimed structure and engagement without accompanying detailed structure allows for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations in question.
Regarding the arguments concerning the paragraph [0045] discussion of 206 fixing 300 so it does not move left and right, it is the Examiner’s position that KR1438’s specification is not persuasive because it does not clearly state how there is no movement. The specification makes a statement in [0045], does not support the statement anywhere else, and the figures of the prior art contradict the statement. Nothing else discussed in the specification supports the argument that the space around 300, shown in Fig 2, is not there. The depicted space between 300 and 200 teaches there is some level of 300 horizontal and vertical movement allowed inside 200.
Regarding the arguments concerning the absence of a magnetic element operatively connected to a jamb. The limitation magnetic element does not require the feature be a magnet. The use of broadly claimed structure and engagement without accompanying detailed structure allows for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations in question. Door frame 11 possesses the ability to attract magnetic part 300 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1 of magnetic and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term. Door frame 11 is also a constituent part of KR1438’s apparatus thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 2 of element and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term.
Regarding the arguments concerning the combination of KR1438 and Krehbiel, US 4306744 A, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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, 2, and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20210001438 U (hereinafter KR1438) in view of Krehbiel, US 4306744 A.
Regarding claim 1, KR1438 teaches a magnetically activated mechanical doorstop (door locking device 100) comprising:
- at least one pin (magnetic part 300) installed in a hollow element (body part 200; cover part 400; Fig 1), the hollow element being operatively connected to a door (door 10; Fig 9 depicts 100 operatively connected to 10);
- at least one magnetic element operatively connected to a jamb ([0001; 0059-0060] discuss 302 of 300 magnetically engaging the door frame 11 therefore 11 possesses the ability to attract magnetic part 300 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1 of magnetic and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, 11 is a constituent part of KR1438’s apparatus thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 2 of element and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term);
the magnetic door frame element being designed to attract and lock the pin by magnetic force when the door is in a closed operating position [0001; 0045; 0059-0060];
the magnetic element being furthermore designed to bring the door to an open operative position [0001; 0017] when the magnetic force between the pin and the magnetic element ceases and the pin falls back by force of gravity in the hollow element (it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill the art that device 100, when installed as oriented and depicted in Fig 2, would function in a similar manner as the instant application where 300 falls and moves back into 200 under gravity once the magnetic attraction between the pin and magnetic element ceases),
characterized in that the pin is free to move horizontally and vertically in the hollow element (Fig 2 depicts 300 free to move horizontally and vertically in 200).
KR1438 does not teach wherein in that the magnetic element installed in the jamb has a horizontally elongated recess suitable for doors with push and pull opening in both directions, the recess being able to house the pin during a closing phase of the door.
Krehbiel teaches it is known in the art for magnetically activated mechanical doorstops for two-way swinging doors (door retainer 10) to comprise wherein the magnetic element (magnetic housing 12) installed in the jamb (door frame 16; Fig 1) has a horizontally elongated recess (beveled retainer bar groove 24) suitable for doors with push and pull opening in both directions (col 1, lines 31-37), the recess being able to house the pin (retainer bar 34 is a piece of solid material used for fastening door 32 to frame 16 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1a of pin and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) during a closing phase of the door (Fig 2 depicts 24 housing 34).
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the magnetic element of KR1438 with the magnetic element of Krehbiel. The prior art contains a magnetically activated mechanical doorstop which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a component (the magnetic element disclosed by KR1438) with another component (the magnetic element disclosed by Krehbiel). Magnetic elements suitable for doors opening in push and pull, two-way direction with or without horizontally elongated recesses are known in the art, as evidenced by Krehbiel, Kennon, US 4155576 A, KR 102008849 B1; Gillham, EP 45197 A, and Wirth, US 20170175427 A1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to design the door strike suitable for the intended door securing application be that a one-way or two-way swinging door in order to ensure maximum functionality and efficacy of the door securing apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a magnetically activated mechanical door stop with a jamb mounted magnetic element which operatively engages with the securing pin in the same manner as disclosed by KR1438.
Regarding claim 2, KR1438 in view of Krehbiel teaches the mechanical doorstop of claim 1, characterized in that the mechanical doorstop is designed to be adjustable allowing to change its position after installation (KR1438; Fig 8 depicts 200 of 100 structurally capable without modification of being adjustable allowing the position of 100 to be changed after installation; Krehbiel, Fig 5 depicts retainer bar housing 30 of 10 structurally capable without modification of being adjustable after installation through the use of elongated openings 54 and lateral adjustment plates 40).
Regarding claim 3, KR1438 in view of Krehbiel teaches the mechanical doorstop of claim 1, characterized in that the magnetic element (Krehbiel, 12) is operatively connected to the jamb (Krehbiel, 16) by means of at least one screw (Krehbiel, screw 52; Fig 2 depicts 12 operatively connected to 16 with 52).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached on (571)272-7376. 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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675