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 .
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.
Claim 21 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.
Regarding claim 21, it is unclear how the base can be a portion of the jamb when these were previously established as different elements. The examiner will examine as best understood with the base adjacent the head jamb. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 6-7, 9-13, 16-17, 19-21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baude, U.S. Patent 3,413,762.
Regarding claim 1, Baude discloses an edge adjustment device for doors comprising: a base (23, 13); a seal bar (20) configured to contact a top edge of a door hingedly coupled to the door jamb (when mounted at the door top, see Fig. 3); one or more springs (40) coupled to the base and the seal bar (via 33), wherein the one or more springs are configured to bias the seal bar toward an extended position and urgable toward a retracted position (see Fig. 2, generally), wherein the seal bar is further from the base in the extended position than it is in the retracted position (inherently). The phrases “configured to contact a top edge of a door hingedly coupled to the door jamb” and “configured to bias the seal bar toward an extended position and urgable toward a retracted position” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Baude discloses an edge adjustment device for doors further comprising one or more tensioning devices (33) configured to limit a maximum distance between the base and the seal bar (via the threads). The phrase “configured to limit a maximum distance between the base and the seal bar” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Baude discloses an edge adjustment device for doors wherein the one or more tensioning devices comprise one or more threaded fasteners (33), wherein rotation of the one or more threaded fasteners changes the maximum distance (as it is screwed into place).
Regarding claim 6, Baude discloses an edge adjustment device for doors wherein the one or more springs comprises two or more springs (a plurality, claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Baude discloses an edge adjustment device for doors wherein the one or more springs comprises one or more compression springs (see figures).
Regarding claim 9, Baude discloses an edge adjustment device for doors wherein the base is configured to be disposed within an opening in a head jamb of a door jamb (depending on the door jamb structure). The phrase “configured to be disposed within an opening in a head jamb of a door jamb” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Baude discloses an edge adjustment device for doors wherein the base is a portion of a head jamb of a door jamb (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Baude discloses a door edge sealing arrangement comprising: a door (1); a door jamb (12, 13) including a head jamb (13); and a swing gap cover device (Fig. 3) coupled to the head jamb (col. 2, lines 18-20), the device comprising: a seal bar (20), and one or more springs (40) coupled to the seal bar, wherein the one or more springs are configured to bias the seal bar toward an extended position and urgable toward a retracted position, wherein the seal bar is further from the head jamb in the extended position than it is in the retracted position (see Fig. 2, generally), wherein the seal bar is configured to contact a top edge of the door in the extended position (as it is located at a top of a door, depending on the door configuration; see Fig. 3, generally). The phrases “configured to contact a top edge of a door hingedly coupled to the door jamb” and “configured to contact a top edge of the door in the extended position” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 12, Baude discloses a door edge sealing arrangement wherein the device further comprises one or more tensioning devices (33) configured to limit a maximum distance between the head jamb and the seal bar (via the threads). The phrase “configured to limit a maximum distance between the head jamb and the seal bar” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 13, Baude discloses a door edge sealing arrangement wherein the one or more tensioning devices comprise one or more threaded fasteners (33), wherein rotation of the one or more threaded fasteners changes the maximum distance (as it is screwed into place).
Regarding claim 16, Baude discloses a door edge sealing arrangement wherein the one or more springs comprises two or more springs (a plurality, claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Baude discloses a door edge sealing arrangement wherein the one or more springs comprises one or more compression springs (see figures).
Regarding claim 19, Baude discloses a door edge sealing arrangement wherein the device further comprises a base (23), wherein the one or more springs are coupled to the base and the seal bar, wherein the seal bar is further from the base in the extended position than it is in the retracted position (see Figs. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 20, Baude discloses a door edge sealing arrangement wherein the base is configured to be disposed within an opening in the head jamb of the door jamb (depending on the door jamb structure). The phrase “configured to be disposed within an opening in a head jamb of a door jamb” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 21, Baude discloses a door edge sealing arrangement wherein the base is a portion of the head jamb of the door jamb (13, 23; see Fig. 1), as best understood in light of the specification.
Regarding claim 23, Baude discloses a door edge sealing arrangement wherein a portion of the door remains in contact with the seal bar throughout the entire swing of the door (see Figs 2, 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) 4-5, 14-15, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baude, U.S. Patent 3,413,762.
Regarding claim 4, Baude discloses an edge adjustment device for doors wherein the base defines one or more openings (at 38, see Fig. 3), wherein the seal bar defines one or more through openings (35), wherein each of the one or more threaded fasteners is disposed within a different one of the one or more through openings (as shown in the figures) and is engaged with a different one of the one or more openings, but does not specifically disclose the opening of the base is threaded, the threaded fastener threadingly engaged with the threaded opening. Baude does disclose a threaded engagement of the fastener within a threaded opening (at 35; tapped hole, col. 4 line 72; abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also produce the base aperture as a threaded opening for a more secure attachment.
Regarding claim 5, Baude discloses an edge adjustment device for doors wherein each of the one or more through openings defines a countersunk portion (at 38 as shown in Fig. 3), wherein the one or more threaded fasteners includes a head (36) disposed within the countersunk portion of the different one of the one or more through openings in which the threaded fastener is disposed (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Baude discloses a door edge sealing arrangement wherein the device further comprises a base (23), wherein the one or more springs are coupled to the base and the seal bar (see figures), wherein the seal bar is further from the base in the extended position than it is in the retracted position (see Figs. 2, 3), wherein the base defines one or more openings (at 38, see Fig. 3), wherein the seal bar defines one or more through openings (35), wherein each of the one or more threaded fasteners is disposed within a different one of the one or more through openings and is engaged with a different one of the one or more openings (as shown in the figures), but does not specifically disclose the opening of the base is threaded, the threaded fastener threadingly engaged with the threaded opening. Baude does disclose a threaded engagement of the fastener within a threaded opening (at 35; tapped hole, col. 4 line 72; abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also produce the base aperture as a threaded opening for a more secure attachment.
Regarding claim 15, Baude discloses a door edge sealing arrangement wherein each of the one or more through openings defines a countersunk portion (at 38 as shown in Fig. 3), wherein the one or more threaded fasteners includes a head (36) disposed within the countersunk portion of the different one of the one or more through openings in which the threaded fastener is disposed (as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 22, Baude discloses a door edge sealing arrangement but does not specifically disclose wherein the door comprises a hidden door. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a building structure door may be hidden from a view depending on the placement within a wall as desired by a user.
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baude, U.S. Patent 3,413,762 in view of Hull, U.S. Patent 476,646.
Regarding claim 8, Baude discloses an edge adjustment assembly for doors but does not disclose wherein the seal bar comprises wood. Hull teaches a door edge mechanism wherein the seal bar comprises wood (claim 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the seal bar from wood depending on material availability and cost, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 18, Baude discloses a door edge sealing arrangement but does not disclose wherein the seal bar comprises wood. Hull teaches a door edge mechanism wherein the seal bar comprises wood (claim 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the seal bar from wood depending on material availability and cost, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights