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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the PCT international search report dated 5 January 2025 have been considered, but will not be listed on any patent resulting from this application because they were not provided on a separate list in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). In order to have the references printed on such resulting patent, a separate listing, preferably on a PTO/SB/08 form, must be filed within the set period for reply to this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “Opening and closing security mechanism comprising at least one frame (3) comprising a fixed frame (4), at least one movable panel (1) with a movable frame (2), wherein [[it]] the opening and closing security mechanism comprises:”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim(s) 1 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites both “at least one locking point” and “the locking points”. It is unclear how many locking points are required by the claims. Appropriate correction or clarification throughout the claims is required.
Claim(s) 1 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “wherein the at least one handle (7): when moved vertically and upwards, jointly moves the tongue (13) also vertically, unblocking it from the locking points (8) of the rod (12), said rod (12) being [[fixed to]] unlatched from the movable frame (2) allowing the movable panel (1) to be opened;”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim(s) 2 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “wherein the locking box (5) comprises profiles (15) for fitting the handle (7) [[incorporated]]”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim(s) 4 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “Mechanism according to claim [[2]] 3 wherein the second integrated system of the second handle is a mosquito net”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim(s) 6 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “Mechanism according to claim 1 [[wherein]] further [[comprises]] comprising: a) at least one outer barrel (14); b) a second locking box (16), located inside the building (10), on the opposite side to the locking box (5) with respect to the frame (3)”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim(s) 7 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “mechanism according to claim 1 [[wherein]] further [[comprises]] comprising an anti-false maneuver mechanism”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim(s) 9 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “Mechanism according to claim 1 wherein the movable panel (1) comprises [[a]] the movable frame (2) with a second handle (9).” Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim(s) 10 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “Mechanism according to claim [[1]] 9 wherein the second handle (9) is integrated in the movable panel (1).” Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim(s) 11 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “Mechanism according to claim 1 [[wherein]] further [[comprises]] comprising at least one motor for opening and closing the at least one movable panel (1).
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 1-12 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.
Claim(s) 1 recites “at least one tongue fixed to at least the one handle, said tongue moving together with the handle and extending to the outside of the locking box fixing to the rod through the fitting in the locking points”. It is unclear how “through the fitting in the locking points” is intended to be interpreted in light of the specification or drawings. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites “where the at least one handle (7): when moved vertically and upwards, jointly moves the tongue (13) also vertically, unblocking it from the locking points (8) of the rod (12), said rod (12) being fixed to the movable frame (2) allowing the movable panel (1) to be opened; and when moved vertically and downwards, jointly moves the tongue (13) also vertically, blocking the locking points (8) of the rod (12), said rod (12) being fixed to the movable frame (2) allowing the movable panel (1) to be closed.” These limitations are inconsistent with other limitations of claim 1 and the specification generally. For the purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as intending to recite “wherein the at least one handle (7): when moved vertically and upwards, jointly moves the tongue (13) also vertically, unblocking [[it from]] the locking points (8) of the rod (12) from the strike plates (6), said rod (12) being [[fixed to]] unlatched from the movable frame (2) allowing the movable panel (1) to be opened; and when moved vertically and downwards, jointly moves the tongue (13) also vertically, blocking the locking points (8) of the rod (12), said rod (12) being fixed to the [[movable]] fixed frame (2) allowing the movable panel (1) to be [[closed]] latched in a closed position.” Appropriate correction or clarification is required such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to definitively understand the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim 6 recites “Mechanism according to claim 1 wherein further comprises: a) at least one outer barrel (14); b) a locking box (16), located inside the building (10), on the opposite side to the locking box (5) with respect to the frame (3), said locking box (16) comprising a tongue (17), which when activated, fits into the locking points (8); and the rotation movement of a key in the barrel (14), transmits movement to the tongue (17) blocking it in the locking points (8) of the rod (12), said rod (12) being fixed to the movable frame (2), the movable panel (1) thus being closed and the opposite rotation movement unlocks its opening, allowing the opening of the movable panel (1).” There are numerous errors regarding antecedent basis, and the specification lacks sufficient context such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to definitively understand the metes and bounds of the claim. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claims 2-12 are rejected for their dependence on claim 1.
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) 1-2, 5, 7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger (US-4436329-A) alone.
With regards to claim 1, Metzger discloses an opening and closing security mechanism (10 Figure 2) comprising at least one frame (30 Figure 2) comprising a fixed frame (36 Figure 2), at least one movable panel (12 Figure 2) with a movable frame (20 Figure 2), wherein it comprises:
a) at least one locking box (62 Figure 2) located on the movable frame of the movable panel, the locking box comprising at least one handle (61 Figure 2);
b) strike plates (37 Figure 2) at a wall of a building where the frame is fixed (Col. 1 Lines 8-16);
c) at least one rod (42 Figure 2) comprising has at least one locking point (48 Figure 2);
d) at least one tongue (56 Figure 2) fixed to at least the one handle, said tongue moving together with the handle and extending to the outside of the locking box fixing to the rod through the fitting in the locking points (Col. 3 Lines 1-24);
where the at least one handle:
when moved vertically and downwards, jointly moves the tongue also vertically, unblocking it from the locking points of the rod, said rod being fixed to (interpreted as intending to recite “said rod being released from the movable frame”, see Claim Objections above) the movable frame allowing the movable panel to be opened (Figure 4 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Figure 2); and
when moved vertically and upwards, jointly moves the tongue also vertically, blocking the locking points of the rod, said rod being fixed to the movable frame allowing the movable panel to be closed (Figure 2 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Figure 4).
Metzger does not disclose that the at least one locking box is embedded at the wall of the building where the frame is fixed, and that the strike plates are located on the movable frame of the movable panel.
However, In re Japikse (181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70) held that rearranging parts of an invention without modifying the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Metzger such that the at least one locking box is embedded at the wall of the building where the frame is fixed, and that the strike plates are located on the movable frame of the movable panel, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to perform this rearrangement in order to simplify fabrication of the movable panel.
Metzger does not disclose that the at least one handle, when moved vertically and upwards, jointly moves the tongue also vertically, unblocking it from the locking points of the rod, and that when moved vertically and downwards, jointly moves the tongue also vertically, blocking the locking points of the rod.
However, In re Japikse (181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70) held that rearranging parts of an invention without modifying the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the orientation of Metzger’s opening and closing security mechanism in the vertical dimension, such that the at least one handle, when moved vertically and upwards, jointly moves the tongue also vertically, unblocking it from the locking points of the rod, and that when moved vertically and downwards, jointly moves the tongue also vertically, blocking the locking points of the rod, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to perform this reversal to prevent the possibility of gravity causing an unintended unlocking operation.
With regards to claim 2, Metzger teaches the mechanism according to claim 1 wherein the locking box (62 Figure 2) comprises profiles (52 Figure 2) for fitting the handle (61 Figure 2) incorporated.
With regards to claim 5, Metzger teaches the mechanism according to claim 1.
Metzger is silent on whether the movable frame (20 Figure 2) and/or the fixed frame (36 Figure 2) are made of aluminum.
However, In re Leshin (277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416) held that it is 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Metzger’s movable frame and fixed frame from aluminum, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to use aluminum for the frames due to its high strength to weight ratio.
With regards to claim 7, Metzger teaches the mechanism according to claim 1 wherein further comprises an anti-false maneuver mechanism (38 Figure 2) located on the movable frame (20 Figure 2) and comprising a counter (44 Figure 2), said counter when pressed, unlocks the vertical movement of the rod (42 Figure 2) by moving the locking points (48 Figure 2) to a retaining groove (46 Figure 2) of the movable panel.
With regards to claim 9, Metzger teaches the mechanism according to claim 1 wherein the movable panel (12 Figure 2) comprises a movable frame (20 Figure 2) with a handle (26 Figure 2).
With regards to claim 10, Metzger teaches the mechanism according to claim 1 wherein the handle (26 Figure 2) is integrated in the movable panel (12 Figure 2).
With regards to claim 11, Metzger teaches the mechanism according to claim 1.
Metzger does not teach at least one motor for opening and closing the at least one movable panel (12 Figure 2).
However, In re Venner (262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194) held that merely providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add at least one motor for opening and closing the at least one movable panel, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to add a motor for automatically and/or electronically opening and closing the at least one movable panel.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger in view of Tashman (US-5740849-A). All citations refer to the Metzger reference unless otherwise noted.
With regards to claim 3, Metzger teaches the mechanism according to claim 1.
Metzger does not teach wherein the locking box (62 Figure 2) comprises two handles (61 Figure 2) or a second integrated system.
However, Tashman discloses a related opening and closing security mechanism (Figures 1-7, Col. 3 Lines 45-61) for a system comprising a main sliding door (12 Figure 1) and a parallel sliding mosquito net door (14 Figure 1). Furthermore, In re Harza (274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378) held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second integrated system (particularly a mosquito net door) as taught by Tashman and an associated handle as taught by Metzger, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to add the mosquito net door and associated handle so that the movable panel can be opened without exposing the building interior to insects.
Therefore, Metzger in view of Tashman teaches wherein the locking box (5) comprises two handles (7), one handle allowing the closing and opening of the movable panel (1), and the second handle comprising a second integrated system.
With regards to claim 4, Metzger in view of Tashman teaches the mechanism according to claim 2 wherein the second integrated system of the second handle is a mosquito net (14 Figure 1 – Tashman).
Claim(s) 6, 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger in view of Sjogren (US-4514996-A). All citations refer to the Metzger reference unless otherwise noted.
With regards to claim 6, Metzger teaches the mechanism according to claim 1.
Metzger does not teach a key operated locking mechanism.
However, Sjogren teaches a sliding door system (Figure 1) comprising:
a) at least one outer barrel (20 Figure 2);
b) a locking box (10 Figure 1), located inside the building, on the opposite side to the locking box with respect to the frame, said locking box comprising a tongue (14 Figure 1), which when activated, fits into the locking points (16 Figure 1); and
the rotation movement of a key (30 Figure 2) in the barrel, transmits movement to the tongue blocking it in the locking points of the rod, said rod being fixed to the movable frame, the movable panel (12 Figure 1) thus being closed and the opposite rotation movement unlocks its opening, allowing the opening of the movable panel (Col. 2 Lines 47-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Sjogren’s key operated locking mechanism to Metzger’s opening and closing security mechanism, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to add such a mechanism to allow locking of the movable panel.
With regards to claim 8, Metzger in view of Sjogren teaches the mechanism according to claim 6 wherein the locking points (48 Figure 2) are of mushroom type (the locking point is substantially mushroom shaped).
With regards to claim 12, Metzger in view of Sjogren teaches the mechanism according claim 6 wherein further comprises an anti-false maneuver mechanism (38 Figure 2) located on the movable frame (20 Figure 2) and comprising a counter (44 Figure 2), said counter when pressed, unlocks the vertical movement of the rod (42 Figure 2) by moving the locking points (48 Figure 2) to a retaining groove (46 Figure 2) of the movable panel.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20120031001-A1: A related sliding door security mechanism.
US-4480862-A: A related sliding door security mechanism.
US-7353637-B2: A related sliding door security mechanism.
US-5906403-A: A related sliding door security mechanism.
US-5152561-A: A related sliding door security mechanism.
US-9097038-B1: A related sliding door security mechanism.
US-5542720-A: A related sliding door security mechanism.
US-10995537-B2: A related sliding door security mechanism.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah Horowitz, whose telephone number is (571)272-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00AM - 7:00 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, Kristina Fulton, can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/NOAH HOROWITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights