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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Fig. 1: It appears each instance of the term “Pannel” should be --Panel--.
Fig. 2: The figure includes several views, which should be separated into their own respective figures. Further, the written text should be darkened for the purpose of legibility.
Fig. 3: It appears the term “Hiden” should be --Hidden--. Further, the written text should be darkened for the purpose of legibility.
Figs. 4-7: The photographs should be replaced by line drawings.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 10: Line 4 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a bottom rail” should be --the bottom rail-- for consistency of the claim language.
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 9 and 20 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.
With regard to claim 9: Line 1 of the claim, the limitation “the second door stile” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the right door stile--.
With regard to claim 20: It’s unclear as to how the third dovetail tongue and the fourth dovetail tongue comprise a square shape. Examiner notes that par. [0042] of the original specification describes square shaped tongues are of a different configuration apart from the dovetail tongues, wherein the square shaped tongues running horizontally. Clarification is requested.
Claims 9 and 20 are examined as best understood.
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) 10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bergevin et al. (US 8,991,125 B2).
With regard to claim 10: Bergevin et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a door (100) (figs. 8-23), the method comprising:
inserting a first dovetail tongue (second mating connector 131) of a bottom rail (bottom key 120) into a first dovetail channel (mating connector 348) of a first door stile (340) (figs. 8-11);
inserting a second dovetail tongue (second mating connector 130) of a bottom rail (bottom key 120) into a second dovetail channel (mating connector 148) of a second door stile (140) (figs. 8 and 12-14);
inserting a door panel (second member 220 from the top) between the first and second door stiles (340 and 140) (fig. 8); and
inserting a top rail (top key 120) into the first and second door stiles (340 and 140), wherein a fifth dovetail tongue (second mating connector 131) of the top rail (top key 120) is received by the first dovetail channel (mating connector 348), and wherein a sixth dovetail tongue of the top rail (top key 120) is received by the second dovetail channel (mating connector 148) (figs. 8-10; col. 7, line 61 – col. 8, line 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
754
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8: Bergevin et al. (US 8,991,125 B2)
With regard to claim 12: Bergevin et al. discloses inserting a middle rail (key 120 below top key 120) between the first and second door stiles (340 and 140) (fig. 8).
With regard to claim 13: Begiving et al. discloses inserting a second door panel (top member 220) between the first and second door stiles (340 and 140), wherein the second door panel (top member 220) is supported by the middle rail (key 120 below top key 120) (fig. 8).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 11, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergevin et al. (US 8,991,125 B2).
With regard to claim 1: Bergevin et al. discloses a door (100) (figs. 8-23)comprising:
a left door stile (340) comprising a first dovetail channel (mating connector 348) on a right edge of the left door stile (340) (fig. 8);
a right door stile (140) comprising a second dovetail channel (mating connector 148) on a left edge of the right door stile (140) (figs. 8 and 12-14);
a bottom rail (bottom key 120) comprising a first dovetail tongue (second mating connector 131) on a left edge of the bottom rail (bottom key 120) and a second dovetail tongue (first mating connector 130) on a right edge of the bottom rail (bottom key 120) (figs. 8-10; col. 7, line 61 – col. 8, line 2); and
a top rail (top key 120) comprising a fifth dovetail tongue (second mating connector 131) on a left edge of the top rail (top key 120) and a sixth dovetail tongue (first mating connector 130) on a right edge of the top rail (top key 120) (figs. 8-10; col. 7, line 61 – col. 8, line 2).
Bergevin et al. discloses a door panel (second member 220 from the top) comprising a third tongue (mating connector at left end 226) on a left edge of the door panel (second member 220 from the top) and a fourth tongue (mating connector at right end 226) on a right edge of the door panel (second member 220 from the top) (fig. 8; col. 8, lines 3-10). Examiner submits that the mating connectors at the left and right ends of each panel are understood to be functionally equivalent to tongues so as to be capable of mating with the dovetail channels of the stiles.
Bergevin et al. does not disclose the third tongue and the fourth tongue are dovetails.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door of Bergevin et al. to have the tongues of the each door panel be dovetails so as to have a uniform configuration with the tongues of the rails, wherein each dovetail corresponds to the channels of the door stiles for ease of assembly. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the tongues of each panel to be dovetails. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 2: As modified, Bergevin et al. discloses that the first dovetail channel (348) of the left door stile (second member 340) is operable to receive the first dovetail tongue (second mating connector 131) of the bottom rail (bottom key 120), the third dovetail tongue (mating connector at left end 226) of the door panel (second member 220 from the top), and the fifth dovetail tongue (second mating connector 131) of the top rail (top key 120) to secure the bottom rail (bottom key 120), the top rail (top key 120), and the door panel (second member 220 from the top) to the left door stile (340) (figs. 8-23; col. 7, line 61 – col. 8, line 2; col. 8, lines 3-10).
With regard to claim 3: As modified, Bergevin et al. discloses that the second dovetail channel (mating connector 148) of the right door stile (first member 140) is operable to receive the second dovetail tongue (first mating connector 130) of the bottom rail (bottom key 120), the fourth dovetail tongue (mating connector at right end 226) of the door panel (second member 220 from the top), and the sixth dovetail tongue (first mating connector 130) of the top rail (top key 120) to secure the bottom rail (bottom key 120), the top rail (top key 120) and the door panel (second member 220 from the top) to the right door stile (140) (figs. 8-23; col. 7, line 61 – col. 8, line 2; col. 8, lines 3-10).
With regard to claim 6: Bergevin et al. discloses a middle rail (key 120 below top key 120) between the left and right door stiles (340 and 140), and between the top rail (top key 120) and the bottom rail (bottom key 120) (fig. 8).
With regard to claim 7: Bergevin et al. discloses a second door panel (top member 220) between the top rail (top key 120) and the middle rail, wherein the second door panel (top member 220) is supported by the middle rail (key 120 below top key 120) (fig. 8).
With regard to claim 8: Bergevin et al. discloses that the left door stile (340), the right door stile (140), the bottom rail (bottom key 120), and the top rail (top key 120) are free of visible seams (fig. 8). Examiner notes that the claim is interpreted as each stile and each rail individually being free of seams.
With regard to claim 9: Bergevin et al. discloses that the left door stile (340), the right door stile (140), the door panel (second member 220 from the top), the top rail (key 120 below top key), and the bottom rail (bottom key 120) are bonded together using glue (col. 8, lines 63-67). Examiner notes that col. 8, lines 63-67 of Bergevin et al. discloses that a releasable connection may be performed without an adhesive (emphasis added), which is understood that the adhesive can also be used.
With regard to claims 11 and 20: Bergevin et al. discloses a door panel (second member 220 from the top) comprising a third tongue (mating connector at left end 226) on a left edge of the door panel (second member 220 from the top) and a fourth tongue (mating connector at right end 226) on a right edge of the door panel (second member 220 from the top) (fig. 8; col. 8, lines 3-10) wherein the third tongue (mating connector at left end 226) is received by the first dovetail channel (mating connector 348), and wherein the fourth tongue (mating connector at right end 226) is received by the second dovetail channel (mating connector 148) (fig. 8). Examiner submits that the mating connectors at the left and right ends of each panel are understood to be functionally equivalent to tongues so as to be capable of mating with the dovetail channels of the stiles.
Bergevin et al. does not disclose the third tongue and the fourth tongue are dovetails.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door of Bergevin et al. to have the tongues of the each door panel be dovetails so as to have uniform configuration with the tongues of the rails, wherein each dovetail corresponds to the channels of the door stiles for ease of assembly. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the tongues of each panel to be dovetails. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 14: Bergevin et al. discloses that the left door stile (340), the right door stile (140), the door panel (second member 220 from the top), the top rail (key 120 below top key), and the bottom rail (bottom key 120) are bonded together using glue (adhesive) (col. 8, lines 63-67). Examiner notes that col. 8, lines 63-67 of Bergevin et al. discloses that a releasable connection may be performed without an adhesive (emphasis added), which is understood that the adhesive can also be used.
Bergevin et al. does not explicitly disclose that the glue would be applied to the first and second dovetail channels to bond the first door stile, the second door stile, the door panel, the top
rail, and the bottom rail together as the dovetail .
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, as the selected option was one of a finite number of available locations to place the glue for surface area of contact between the door stiles, the door panel, and the rails in order mitigate disengagement. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the method to include applying glue to the dovetail channels. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergevin et al. (US 8,991,125 B2) in view of MacDonald (US 3,083,745)
With regard to claims 4-5: Bergevin et al. does not disclose a first door cover fixed to a front side of the left door stile, the right door stile, the top rail, and the bottom rail. Bergevin et al. does not disclose a second door cover fixed to a back side of the left door stile, the right door stile, the top rail, and the bottom rail.
However, MacDonald discloses a door cover (40, 42) fixed to a front and back side of a left door stile (22), a right door stile (24), a top rail (18), and a bottom rail (20) (figs. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door of Bergevin et al. to include a door cover fixed to a front and back side of the left door stile, the right door stile, the top rail, and the bottom rail such as taught by MacDonald in order to provide a finished surface where the abutting joints are hidden for a desired aesthetic.
With regard to claims 16-17: Bergevin et al. does not disclose affixing a first door cover to a front side of the first door stile, the second door stile, the top rail, and the bottom rail. Bergevin et al. does not disclose affixing a second door cover to a back side of the first door stile, the second door stile, the top rail, and the bottom rail.
However, MacDonald discloses affixing a door cover (40, 42) to a front and back side of a left door stile (22), a right door stile (24), a top rail (18), and a bottom rail (20) (figs. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bergevin et al. to include affixing a door cover to a front and back side of the left door stile, the right door stile, the top rail, and the bottom rail such as taught by MacDonald in order to provide a finished surface where the abutting joints are hidden for a desired aesthetic.
Claim(s) 15 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergevin et al. (US 8,991,125 B2) in view of Schiedegger et al. (US 2010/0154340 A1).
With regard to claim 15: Bergevin et al. does not disclose squeezing the door laterally to improve bonding between the first door stile, the second door stile, the door panel, the
top rail, and the bottom rail.
However, Schiedegger et al. discloses a panel (shutter) that is clamped during bonding, sanded and primed (par. [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bergevin et al. to include clamping during bonding such as taught by Schiedegger et al. in order to prevent movement during bonding and maximize surface area of contact. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 18: Bergevin et al. does not disclose sanding the door.
However, Schiedegger et al. discloses a panel (shutter) that is clamped during bonding, sanded and primed (par. [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bergevin et al. to include sanding such as taught by Schiedegger et al. in order to provide a smooth surface and/or to facilitate further finishing. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 19: Bergevin et al. does not disclose finishing the door using primer.
However, Schiedegger et al. discloses a panel (shutter) that is clamped during bonding, sanded and primed (par. [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bergevin et al. to include priming such as taught by Schiedegger et al. in order to protect the wood material and/or allow for adhesion of paint. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited is directed to door assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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 (571)272-6754. 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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633