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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (claims 1-23) in the reply filed on 01/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in figure 14, reference “142” should be “144” (i.e., referring to the second end of the second spring, mentioned in paragraph [0064]). 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 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 1-20 and 23 and 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: at least a biasing element (e.g., the springs) to provide resistance, in a basic, operable embodiment, to perform door checking. Without a biasing means, the claimed invention is inoperable. Note that the disclosure does not show any operable embodiment without the springs, for door checking.
Claim 7 is confusing because it is not clear exactly how the first guide and the second guide, stated in claim 2, are related/linked to the respective springs. Apparently, the second spring should have been positioned between the middle guide and the first guide, and the rear spring should have been positioned between the between the second guide and the second end of the rod.
In claim 23, lines 6-7, it is not clear exactly what “a first spring” and “a second spring” are referring to and how these springs are different from the “first spring” and “a second spring” stated in lines 4-5 of the claim.
Note that other claims, depending from the rejected claims, are also considered vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 9-11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by GB ‘737 (GB 1290737 A).
Regarding claim 1, GB ‘737 (embodiment of figures 9-10) shows a rod (1), a ball pivot (40 and 41) comprising a passage (fig. 10) and a spherical or rounded exterior surface (page 3, line 100); a first guide (42) comprising a passage (defined by the bottom rim of fig. 9) and a socket end (page 3, line 105); a second guide (43) comprising a passage (defined by the upper rim of fig. 9) and a socket end (page 3, line 105); the rod (1) is configured to pass through the passage of the ball pivot, the passage of the first guide, and the passage of the second guide; and the socket ends are configured to moved or slide against the spherical or rounded exterior surface of the ball pivot (page 3, lines 95-99 and fig. 10).
As to claim 9, the socket end of the first guide (42) and the socket end of the second guide (43) are configured to move or slide against opposite sides of the spherical or rounded exterior surface of the ball pivot (e.g., left side and right side as viewing from fig. 10).
As to claim 10, the socket ends include a concave or cup-like shape that partially receives the spherical or rounded exterior surface of the ball pivot (figs. 9-10).
As to claim 11, the ball pivot (40, 41) includes a first rounded exterior surface and a second exterior surface, and wherein the first rounded exterior surface and the second rounded exterior surface are on opposite side of the ball pivot (e.g., opposite surfaces in the up-down direction or opposite surfaces in the left-right direction as viewing from fig. 10).
As to claim 16, a central axis of the rod (1) is coincident to a centroid of the ball pivot (40, 41), and wherein the central axis of the rod remains coincident to the centroid of the ball pivot during articulation or strokes of the door check (see center line of fig. 9).
As to claim 17, a central axis of the rod and a central axis (see vertical center line shown in fig. 9) of the passages of the first guide and the second guide are coincident.
As to claim 18, the socket ends includes a concave or cup-like shape that partially receives the spherical or rounded exterior surface of the ball pivot (figs. 9-10); wherein the ball pivot and the concave or cup-like shape share a same centroid (i.e., all focal points of the exterior surface and the concave are disposed at the same centroid).
As to claim 19, similar to claim 18, the rod (1) is coincident to a centroid of the ball pivot (40, 41), and the rod is configured to move in multiple planes relative to the ball pivot and still remain coincident to the centroid of the ball pivot (see page 3, lines 95-98).
As to claim 20, the socket end of the first guide (42) and the socket end of the second guide (43) are configure to move or slide against opposite side of the spherical or rounded exterior surface of the ball pivot (see claim 9 above), and the socket ends maintain the rod (1) in alignment or passing through a centroid of the ball pivot (similar to claim 19).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Snowdon ‘526 (2,063,526).
Regarding claim 22, Snowdon shows a door check having a rod (6); a rod support comprising a passage (21, 22 and fig. 4); a first spring comprising a first end, a second end and an interior (15); a second spring comprising a first end, a second end, and an interior (16); a guide comprising a passage (37), a first end (left side end, fig. 1) proximate the rod support, and a second end (right side end, fig. 1) proximate the second spring (16); the rod (6) is configured to pass through the interior of the first spring, the interior of the second spring, the passage of the guide, and the passage of the rod support; and wherein the first spring (15) is configured to bias or abut against the second spring (through plate 37 and head 13), and wherein the second spring is configured to bias or abut against the second end of the guide (37).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB ‘737.
GB ‘737 discloses the invention as claimed except for the rod to pivot/tilt approximately 2-12 degrees in the vertical direction and 20-50 degrees in the horizontal direction. GB ‘737 does not specify the vertical and horizontal pivoting/tilting range. Instead, GB states that the swivel ball pivot is “to provide for the possibility of greater relative angular between the stay rod and the housing” (page 3, lines 95-116), without any specific range. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rod pivoting/tilting approximately 2-12 degrees in the vertical direction and 20-50 degrees in the horizontal direction as needed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 23, as best as understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snowdon ‘526.
Snowdon ‘526 shows the invention as claimed, including a door check having a rod (6); a rod support comprising a passage (21, 22 and fig. 4); a first spring comprising a first end, a second end and an interior (15); a second spring comprising a first end, a second end, and an interior (16); a rear spring (31) comprising a first end, a second end, and an interior; the rod (6) is configured to pass through the interior of the first spring, the interior of the second spring, the passage of the rod support, and the interior of the rear spring; wherein the first spring (15) is configured to bias or abut against the second spring (through plate 37 and head 13), and wherein the second spring is configured to bias or abut against a first side of the rod support, wherein the rear spring (31) is configured to bias or abut against a second side of the rod support (figs. 1-2). Snowdon does not show the rear spring being a conical spring. Instead, Snowdon uses a cylindrical spring. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a conical spring as the rear spring, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 and 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 21 is allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Related prior art:
2,320,449 (Schofield) shows a door check having a rod, a rod support, a first spring on the rod and positioned against one side of the support, and a second spring on the rod and positioned against an opposite side of the support.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUCK MAH whose telephone number is (571)272-7059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00.
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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/CHUCK Y MAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677 CM
March 28, 2026