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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-27 are pending. Claims 1-19 are subject to examination in this Office action. Claims 20-27 are withdrawn (non-elected).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 12 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 June 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, the term “the entire volume” lacks proper antecedent basis. In this regard, the Examiner suggests reciting --an entirety of the volume--.
Regarding claim 8, is the term “sticking transitions” intended to refer back to the previously recited sticking transitions, or is it intended to define additional sticking transitions? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 9, is the recited “a sticking transition” intended to refer back to the previously recited sticking transitions, or is it intended to define an additional sticking transition? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 9, the term “the sticking transition” is recited. To which previously recited sticking transition is this term referring? Clarification is requested.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Green (U.S. Patent No. 5,074,087), in view of Hartzog (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0374848).
Regarding independent claim 1, Green describes an interior door comprising:
a frame (11, 13, 14 and 15) having first and second sides and defining outer lateral sides of the interior door;
first and second fiberglass doorskins (22, 22; Abstract; col. 2, ll. 33-40) attached to the first and second sides of the frame, respectively, each doorskin comprising an outer portion and a panel portion recessed from the outer portion (see e.g., Figs. 1-7); and
foam (20) between the outer portions of the first and second doorskins.
Green does not appear to expressly describe a spacer between the panel portions of the first and second fiberglass doorskins. As evidenced by Hartzog, it was old and well-known in the door art to position a spacer (40 or 50) between the panel portions of the first and second fiberglass doorskins (32, 34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position a spacer between the panel portions of the first and second fiberglass doorskins with a reasonable expectation of success to bolster the structural integrity of the door. Such combination of known prior art elements that merely yields predictable results would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-16.
Accordingly, Green as modified by Hartzog results in the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the spacer fills a volume defined by the panel portions of the first and second fiberglass doorskins (see e.g., Hartzog Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 3, where the spacer fills substantially the entire volume defined by the panel portions of the first and second fiberglass doorskins (see e.g., Hartzog Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the spacer contacts the first and second fiberglass doorskins (see e.g., Hartzog Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the foam contacts the first and second fiberglass doorskins (see e.g., Green Figs. 1-7).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the foam contacts the frame and the spacer (see e.g., Green Figs. 1-7; Hartzog Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the foam fills a volume defined by the outer portions of the first and second fiberglass doorskins, sticking transitions of the first and second fiberglass doorskins, and the frame (see e.g., Green Figs. 1-7; Hartzog Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 8, where the foam fills substantially the entire volume defined by the outer portions of the first and second fiberglass doorskins, sticking transitions of the first and second fiberglass doorskins, and the frame (see e.g., Green Figs. 1-7; Hartzog Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the first and second fiberglass doorskins each comprise a sticking transition between the outer portion and the panel portion, the sticking transition being planar and defining an angle relative to a plane of the outer portion of greater than about 70 degrees (see e.g., Green Figs. 1-7; Hartzog Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the angle is between about 75 degrees and about 90 degrees (see e.g., Green Figs. 1-7; Hartzog Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the panel portion is recessed from the outer portion by a depth between about 0.3 inches and about 0.75 inches (see e.g., Green Figs. 1-7; Hartzog Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the spacer comprises cardboard (see e.g., Green Figs. 1-7; Hartzog Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the cardboard comprises corrugated cardboard (see e.g., Green Figs. 1-7; Hartzog Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the spacer comprises a wood composite (see e.g., Green Figs. 1-7; Hartzog Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the frame comprises a wood composite (see e.g., Green Figs. 1-7; Hartzog Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the wood composite comprises laminated veneer lumber (LVL) (see e.g., Green Figs. 1-7; Hartzog Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 17, wherein the foam comprises expanded polystyrene (EPS) (see e.g., Green Figs. 1-7; Hartzog Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 18, wherein each of the first and second fiberglass doorskins comprises a plurality of panel portions recessed from the outer portion (see e.g., Green Figs. 1-7; Hartzog Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 19, wherein the interior door exhibits a flame spread index below 25 when tested according to the ASTM E84-21a test method (see e.g., Green Figs. 1-7; Hartzog Figs. 3-5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Refer to the attached Form PTO-892.
Authorization for Email Communication – In the event Applicant wishes to communicate with the Examiner via electronic mail, written authorization should be provided in Applicant’s next response. See MPEP § 502.03. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by Applicant:
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, we hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with any authorized representative concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. We understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY MINTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7327. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 0730 - 1630 EDT.
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 Mattei can be reached on 571-270-3238. 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.
/RODNEY MINTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights