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 § 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, 7-8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edwards et al. US 20150225989.
Regarding claim 1, Edwards discloses a door holding device (fig1,4) comprising:
a flexible line (C) extending from a first end (at right S, fig5) to a second end (at left S, fig 5);
a retention body (S) connected to the flexible line at a first location (annotated figure) and a second location (annotated figure) of the retention body, the second location being more proximate the first end than the first location and further wherein a slidable connection is defined between the flexible line and the retention body at the first location such that the flexible line forms an adjustable loop (L2) proximate the first end; and
a catch member (CR) secured to the second end. (fig1-5, annotated figure)
Regarding claim 2, Edwards discloses the door holding device of claim 1, wherein the door holding device is configured such that the loop can be cinched about a surface of door (about surface of H on door, fig5) to be held open, and the catch member is configured to engage a separate structure (J) apart from the door.
Regarding claim 3, Edwards discloses the door holding device of claim 2, wherein the door holding device is configured such that upon final installation, tension in the flexible line maintains the door in an opened position (fig4,6).
Regarding claim 7, Edwards discloses the door holding device of claim 1, wherein the retention body defines a first hole (where flexible line first inserts through S, fig1,3) at the first location for slidably receiving the flexible line.
Regarding claim 8, Edwards discloses the door holding device of claim 7, wherein the retention body defines a second hole (where the flexible line loops back into S, fig1,3) at the second location configured to slidably receive the flexible line.
Regarding claim 10, Edwards discloses the door holding device of claim 1, wherein the catch member includes a hook (fig1).
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, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. US 20150225989.
Regarding claim 4, Edwards teaches a door holding device of claim 1, with a flexible line but does not teach explicitly wherein the flexible line is a shock cord.
Edwards does teach that various materials can be used for the flexible line ( C ) (paragraph 38). 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 device of Edwards wherein the flexible line is a shock cord since the selection of the type of cable is a design choice that is of routine skill in the art since any type of flexible line (as explained by Edwards) would remain functionally equivalent.
Regarding claim 11, Edwards teaches the apparatus of holding a door (the door is held at position P, fig4) and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Edwards is capable of teaching the method of holding open a door, the method comprising:
providing a door holding device (fig1) including:
a flexible line ( C) extending from a first end (at right S, fig 5) to a second end (at left S, fig5,
a retention body (S) connected to the flexible body such that the flexible body forms an adjustable loop (fig1-6) proximate the first end,
a catch member (CR) secured to the second end;
forming the adjustable loop to a first size (fig1, first size is considered pre installation, paragraph 41);
assembling the adjustable loop in the first size over a surface (over surface on H of the door) of a door(D);
forming the adjustable loop to a second size that is less than the first size such that the adjustable loop is cinched about the surface (see fig4);
maneuvering the door to an opened position (at position P);
and connecting the catch member relative to a structure (J) apart from the door;
wherein following connection of the catch member to the structure, tension in the flexible line maintains the door in the opened position. (Paragraphs 41,48-50, figs1-6, annotated figure)
Regarding claim 12, Edwards teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the surface of the door is a door handle. (fig1-6)
Regarding claim 13, Edwards teaches the method of claim 11, wherein following the step of maneuvering the door to the opened position and prior to the step of connecting the catch member relative to the , the method further comprising:
winding a section of the flexible line about the surface to reduce a length of a free section of the flexible line that otherwise extends from the surface.
Edwards discusses the use of a flexible line and loop that is of varying sizes and materials, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Edwards is capable of teaching the winding of a section of flexible line in order to make the length of the flexible line smaller, which is a modification of size and therefore a design consideration that is of routine skill in the art. MPEP2144.
Regarding claim 14, Edwards teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising:
mounting a capture device (E2) to the structure apart from the door;
wherein the step of connecting the catch member includes securing the catch member to the capture device. (fig1-6)
Regarding claim 15, Edwards teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the capture device defines an eyelet (see fig3) for receiving the catch member.
Regarding claim 16, Edward teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the retention body defines a first hole (see annotated figure) and a second hole (see annotated figure), the flexible line passing through the first and second holes to define the adjustable loop, and further wherein the step of forming the adjustable loop to a second size that is less than the first size includes sliding the flexible line relative to the first hole. (fig1-3)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. US 20150225989, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Libecco US 6389655.
Regarding claim 9, Edwards teaches the door holding device of claim 8, but does not teach the device further comprising a fixation member.
LIbecco teaches a holding device with a flexible line further comprising a fixation member (22) formed proximate the first end (13) of the flexible line (11), wherein an outer dimension of the fixation member is greater than a diameter (diameter in hole of 15/20 where 13 of 11 passes through) of the second hole.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Edwards with the addition of the fixation member as taught by Libecco in order to have a means of stopping the flexible line from passing back (Libecco col 3 lines 15-21).
Annotated Figure
PNG
media_image1.png
837
1064
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Firstly, there was a typographical error in the prior office action, the adjustable loop is in fact L2. Secondly, Examiner maintains that the loop is adjustable. Crimping the retention body (S) onto the cable (flexible line C) does not negate the ability to adjust the loop size. Paragraph 41 of the Edwards reference describes how the loops are “sized” to fit its intended location, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the loop itself is adjustable. Also note that paragraph 40 only describes the crimping of (S) in one embodiment, however other types of (S) can be used. Furthermore, the adjustability of the loop can occur prior to the crimping of the fastener onto the cable – this is well known in the art in order for the user to create their own loops. Applicant does not state that the retention body must be fixed to the cable prior to the cable loop being adjusted. It is well known in the art that first the sleeve type fastener (as shown in fig1 of Edwards) is first joined with the cable and the cable is adjusted to create the desired loop before the sleeve is then crimped onto the cable to secure it. The wedge socket also mentioned in paragraph 40 is designed to create explicitly adjustable loops, which is well known in the art. Rejection maintained.
Regarding claim 11, figure 4 shows the device of Edwards held open. Examiner does acknowledge that the door cannot move past point P in figure 4, which is also acknowledged by Edwards in paragraph 48, however the same paragraph also states the door is held slightly ajar, i.e. open. Applicant does not detail how open the door is (fully open or not) held in their claimed invention. Edwards fig6 also shows the door slightly ajar (considered still open) but held in that position (paragraph 49). Rejection maintained.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant’s amendment states that the winding of the flexible line occurs before the connection of the catch member to the structure of the door, therefore occurs before the device is fully mounted, therefore the cable cannot be in tension in this step, which Edwards is capable of teaching because this occurs before full assembly. Rejection maintained.
Newly present claim 16 is rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art is related to holding devices.
Related but not relied upon prior art: US 1145980, US 20160251882, US 3328064.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FARIA F. AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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 M. 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.
/F.F.A./
Examiner
Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675