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 Figures 1 and 2 include reference lines and arrows without corresponding reference numerals (lower left side). 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 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner notes that the claims appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The claims are replete with examples of unclear and awkwardly worded claim language, and the examples below are NON-LIMITING examples only. Applicant must review and amend all claims for clarity, definiteness, and grammatical accuracy.
Claim 1 recites “a first door element, which comprises a rear-sided and a front-sided edge, which is connected to a displacement device arranged inside the door compartment”. This limitation is awkwardly worded due to the phrase “which is”, since it is unclear with regard to what exactly the term “which is” is intended to refer (i.e. is the first door element, the rear-sided edge, or the front-sided edge claimed as being “connected to a displacement device”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “wherein a spacer device with a device body is provided, which is arranged at the entrance opening of the door compartment and which comprises a first spacer roller”. This limitation is awkwardly worded due to the phrase “which is”, since it is unclear with regard to what exactly the term “which is” is intended to refer (i.e. is the “spacer device” or the “device body” claimed as being “arranged at the entrance opening of the door compartment”? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “that the first door element is connected to a first door magnet member on a side facing the spacer device, and that the spacer device on a side facing the first door magnet member is connected to a first device magnet member”. This limitation is awkwardly worded due to the terms “a side” (i.e. a side of what?). Examiner recommends, for example, that “that the first door element is connected to a first door magnet member on a side facing the spacer device” is replaced with “that the first door element is connected to a first door magnet member on a side of the first door element facing the spacer device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “that the second door element is connected to a second door magnet member on a side facing the spacer device, and that the spacer device on a side facing the second door magnet member is connected to a second device magnet member”. This limitation is awkwardly worded due to the terms “a side” (i.e. a side of what?). Examiner recommends that “that the second door element is connected to a second door magnet member on a side facing the spacer device” is replaced with “that the second door element is connected to a second door magnet member on a side of the second door element facing the spacer device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “an upper spacer device” and “a lower spacer device”. Claim 1, however, recites “a spacer device”, and it is unclear if the “an upper spacer device” and “a lower spacer device” are different with respect to the previously recited “a spacer device” (i.e. how many “spacer devices” are being claimed?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “the first door element on the side facing the upper spacer device”. This limitation is unclear since “the side facing the upper spacer device” lacks proper antecedent basis (i.e. only “a side facing the spacer device” is previously recited in claim 1, is “the spacer device” and “the upper spacer device” intended to refer to the same structure?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “the first door element on the side facing the lower spacer device”. This limitation is unclear since “the side facing the lower spacer device” lacks proper antecedent basis (i.e. only “a side facing the spacer device” is previously recited in claim 1, is “the spacer device” and “the lower spacer device” intended to refer to the same structure?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “the second door element on the side facing the upper spacer device”. This limitation is unclear since “the side facing the upper spacer device” lacks proper antecedent basis (i.e. only “a side facing the spacer device” is previously recited, is “the spacer device” and “the upper spacer device” intended to refer to the same structure?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “the second door element on the side facing the lower spacer device”. This limitation is unclear since “the side facing the lower spacer device” lacks proper antecedent basis (i.e. only “a side facing the spacer device” is previously recited, is “the spacer device” and “the lower spacer device” intended to refer to the same structure?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “each of the first door magnet members”. This limitation is unclear since only a single “a first door magnet member” is previously recited in claim 1, from which claim 7 depends (i.e. what is being referred to be “each”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “each of the first and the second door magnet members”. This limitation is unclear since only a single “a first door magnet member” is previously recited in claim 1, from which claim 7 depends. Additionally, “the second door magnet members” and “the second door element” recited in the claim. lacks proper antecedent basis and is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “each of the first door magnet members”. This limitation is unclear since only a single “a first door magnet member” is previously recited in claim 1, from which claim 8 depends (i.e. what is being referred to be “each”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “each of the first and the second door magnet members”. This limitation is unclear since only a single “a first door magnet member” is previously recited in claim 1, from which claim 8 depends. Additionally, “the second door magnet members” lacks proper antecedent basis and is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “at least one of the first door magnet members or at least one of the first and the second door magnet members” and “all first door magnet members or all first and second door magnet members”. This limitation is unclear since only a single “a first door magnet member” is previously recited in claim 1, from which claim 9 depends (i.e. what is being referred to be “each”?). Additionally, “the second door magnet members” lacks proper antecedent basis and is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “the entire inner side of the door element”. This is unclear since “the entire inner side of the door element” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “at least one of the first spacer rollers or at least one of the first and second spacer rollers”. This limitation is unclear since only a single “a first spacer roller” is previously recited in claim 1, from which claim 10 depends (i.e. what is being referred to be “at least one of the first spacer rollers”?). Additionally, “the second spacer rollers” lacks proper antecedent basis and is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “the level of the confronting first or second door magnet members or the cover or coating lying thereon and can roll thereon during a displacement of the first or second door element”. This limitation is unclear since “the level of the confronting first or second door magnet members” and “the cover or coating lying thereon” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “each of the plate-shaped first door magnet members”. This limitation is unclear since “each of the plate-shaped first door magnet members” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “each of the plate-shaped second door magnet members extends from the rear-sided edge of the second door element”. This limitation is unclear since “each of the plate-shaped second door magnet members” and “the rear-sided edge of the second door element” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “the first device magnet members or the first and second device magnet members”. This limitation is unclear since “the first device magnet members” lacks proper antecedent basis (i.e. only a single “a first door magnet member” is previously recited). Additionally, “the first and second device magnet members” lack proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “a plurality of magnetic elements that are preferably plate-shaped, pill-shaped, tablet-shaped or cylindrical”. This is unclear due to the term “preferably” (i.e. are the magnetic elements “plate-shaped, pill-shaped, tablet-shaped or cylindrical” or not?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “at least one of the first or second spacer rollers”. This limitation is unclear since “the first or second spacer rollers” lacks proper antecedent basis (i.e. only “a first spacer roller” is recited in claim 1, from which claim 13 depends). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “one of the guide carriages”. This limitation is unclear since “one of the guide carriages” lacks proper antecedent basis (i.e. no “guide carriages” are recited in claim 1, from which claim 13 depends). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “one of the guide carriages”. This limitation is unclear since “one of the guide carriages” lacks proper antecedent basis (i.e. no “guide carriages” are recited in claim 1, from which claim 14 depends). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “each of the spacer devices”. This limitation is unclear since “each of the spacer devices” lacks proper antecedent basis (i.e. only “a spacer device” is recited in claim 1, from which claim 14 depends). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5-6 and 15 are objected to as depending from a base claim with an objection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Examiner agrees with Written Opinion of the International Search Authority for PCT/EP2023/064755, of which the instant application is filed under 35 U.S.C. 371.
The prior art of record lacks the structure and functionality of wherein the first door element is connected to a first door magnet part on a side of the door facing the spacer device, and in that the spacer device is connected to a first device magnet part on a side of the spacer device facing the first door magnet part, which first device magnet part interacts magnetically with the first door magnet part in such a way that the first door element is drawn towards the spacer device as soon as the first door magnet part and the first device magnet part, at least one of which is a permanent magnet, are opposite each other, in combination with the overall claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN B REPHANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/JUSTIN B REPHANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3634