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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2 recites “the second door a second single…”, but should recite “the second door is a second single…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farag (US 20080295425) in view of Wenig (US 3729869).
Regarding claim 1, Farag teaches (fig. 3 and 16) a double door system comprising: a first door (on right fig. 3) having a first interior stile and a first exterior stile (fig. 3);
a second door (on left fig. 3) having a second interior stile and a second exterior stile (fig. 3);
a door frame (35) including: a first jamb (vertical portion connected to first exterior stile via hinges) rotatably coupled to the first exterior stile of the first door;
a second jamb (vertical portion connected to second exterior stile via hinges) rotatably coupled to the second exterior stile of the second door such that when the system is in a closed position (shown in fig. 3), the first interior stile of the first door is positioned adjacent to the second interior stile of the second door (fig. 3);
a head jamb (horizontal portion) spanning between the first jamb and the second jamb in a first direction (the horizontal direction);
wherein the first interior stile of the first door is an integral (essential or intact are definitions for integral per thefreedictionary.com, both of these definitions read on this) metal (paragraph 131 a stile made of metal, and paragraph 134 teaches that the embodiment in fig. 16 has the same metal structure as the embodiment in fig. 15) member having a cross section comprising:
a first section positioned generally perpendicular in cross-section to the first direction; a second section positioned generally parallel in cross-section to the first direction; a third section positioned generally perpendicular to the first direction in cross-section; and a fourth section spanning between the third section and the first section, the fourth section extending beyond the first section to form a first astragal (123, see annotated fig. 16 below).
Farag does not explicitly teach that the first interior stile is a single one piece folded member.
Wenig teaches a door system with a frame element that is a single one piece folded member (see claim 6 of Wenig, and fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Farag so that the first interior stile is a single one piece folded member still containing the outer shape as shown in the annotated fig. 16 below. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of simplifying manufacturing and allowing easy of reproduction.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified Farag teaches that the second interior stile (shown as 41 on left in fig. 16) of the second door is
an integral (essential or intact are definitions for integral per thefreedictionary.com, both of these definitions read on this) metal (paragraph 131 a stile made of metal, and paragraph 134 teaches that the embodiment in fig. 16 has the same metal structure as the embodiment in fig. 15) member having a cross section comprising:
a first section of the second member positioned generally perpendicular in cross-section to the first direction; a second section of the second member positioned generally parallel in cross-section to the first direction; a third section of the second member positioned generally perpendicular to the first direction in cross-section; and a fourth section of the second member spanning between the third section and the first section, the fourth section of the second member extending beyond the first section to form a second astragal (see annotated fig. 16 above, the elements are mirrored from what is shown on the first interior stile).
Farag does not explicitly teach that the second interior stile is a single one piece folded member.
Wenig teaches a door system with a frame element that is a single one piece folded member (see claim 6 of Wenig, and fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Farag so that the second interior stile is a single one piece folded member still containing the outer shape as shown in the annotated fig. 16 below. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of simplifying manufacturing and allowing easy of reproduction.
Regarding claim 3, modified Farag teaches a first abutting member (arm 124) coupled to the first astragal; and a portion of a first weather stripping member (125) positioned between the first abutting member and the first section of the first interior stile (annotated fig. 16).
Regarding claim 4, modified Farag teaches a second abutting member (arm 124 but on the second interior stile) coupled to the second astragal (annotated fig. 16 shows this for the first interior stile, regarding the second interior stile it is mirrored from the annotated fig. above); and a portion of a second weather stripping member positioned between the second abutting member and the first section of the first interior stile (fig. 16).
Regarding claim 12, Farag teaches (figs. 3 and 16) a double door system comprising:
a first door (on right fig. 3) having a first interior stile and a first exterior stile (fig. 3);
a second door (on left fig. 3) having a second interior stile and a second exterior stile (fig. 3);
a door frame (35) including: a first jamb (vertical portion connected to the first exterior stile via hinges) rotatably coupled to the first exterior stile of the first door;
a second jamb (vertical portion connected to second exterior stile via hinges) rotatably coupled to the second exterior stile of the second door such that when the system is in a closed position (fig. 3), the first interior stile of the first door is positioned adjacent to the second interior stile of the second door (fig. 3);
a head jamb (horizontal portion) spanning between the first jamb and the second jamb in a first direction (horizontal direction);
wherein the first interior stile of the first door is an integral (essential or intact are definitions for integral per thefreedictionary.com, both of these definitions read on this) metal (paragraph 131 a stile made of metal, and paragraph 134 teaches that the embodiment in fig. 16 has the same metal structure as the embodiment in fig. 15) component having a cross section comprising:
(note to see the second annotated fig. 16 below, which differs from the one above) a first section positioned generally perpendicular in cross-section to the first direction; a second section positioned generally parallel in cross-section to the first direction; a third section positioned generally perpendicular to the first direction in cross-section wherein the third section has a shorter cross-sectional length than the first section; and a fourth section positioned generally parallel in cross-section to the first direction and spanning from the third section towards the first section; a fifth section spanning between the fourth section to a sixth section; and the sixth section positioned generally parallel to the second section and extending from the fifth section to a position beyond the first section to form a first astragal (annotated fig. 16 below).
Farag does not explicitly teach that the first interior stile is a single one piece folded member.
Wenig teaches a door system with a frame element that is a single one piece folded member (see claim 6 of Wenig, and fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Farag so that the first interior stile is a single one piece folded component still containing the outer shape as shown in the annotated fig. 16 below. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of simplifying manufacturing and allowing easy of reproduction.
PNG
media_image2.png
494
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, modified Farag teaches that the second interior stile (the stile on the left in the figures) of the second door is
an integral (essential or intact are definitions for integral per thefreedictionary.com, both of these definitions read on this) metal (paragraph 131 a stile made of metal, and paragraph 134 teaches that the embodiment in fig. 16 has the same metal structure as the embodiment in fig. 15) component having a cross section comprising:
a first section of the second component positioned generally perpendicular in cross-section to the first direction; a second section of the second component positioned generally parallel in cross-section to the first direction; a third section of the second component positioned generally perpendicular to the first direction in cross-section; and a fourth section of the second component positioned generally parallel in cross- section to the first direction and spanning from the third section towards the first section; a fifth section of the second component spanning between the fourth section of the second component to a sixth section of the second component; and the sixth section of the second component positioned generally parallel to the second section of the second component and extending from the fifth section of the second component to a position beyond the first section of the second component to form a second astragal (in the same manner as the first stile, which is shown in annotated fig. 16 above).
Farag does not explicitly teach that the second interior stile is a second single one piece folded component.
Wenig teaches a door system with a frame element that is a single one piece folded component (see claim 6 of Wenig, and fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Farag so that the second interior stile is a second single one piece folded component still containing the outer shape as shown in the annotated fig. 16 below. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of simplifying manufacturing and allowing easy of reproduction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 MATTHEW R SHEPHERD whose telephone number is (571)272-5657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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.
/M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights