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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/15/2025 has been entered.
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) 1-4, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farag (US 20080295425).
NOTE: Claims 1-2, and 12-13 are considered product-by-process claims. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structures implied by the steps (See MPEP 2113).
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).”
“The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979) (holding "interbonded by interfusion" to limit structure of the claimed composite and noting that terms such as "welded," "intermixed," "ground in place," "press fitted," and "etched" are capable of construction as structural limitations).”
“ONCE A PRODUCT APPEARING TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL IS FOUND AND A PRIOR ART REJECTION IS MADE, THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE APPLICANT TO SHOW AN NONOBVIOUS DIFFERENCE”
For claims 1-2, and 12-13 below, the structure in the prior art teaches the limitations required by the claim because they are capable of being assembled via the process claimed:
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 (shown as 41 on right in fig. 16) of the first door is formed from a single sheet of metal bent to form (product by process limitation, the embodiment is capable of being formed from a single sheet of metal that is bent to form, see paragraphs 131-134 which first discusses the embodiment in fig. 15 being formed of metal, then discusses the embodiment used as shown in fig. 16., which is structurally similar. The metal elements are in the form of thin sheets in the figures, and the sheets are capable of being “bent” to form at least at the corners, and the elements are capable of being “stamped” from a single sheet):
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 and extending beyond the first section to form a first astragal (123, see annotated fig. 16 below).
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 formed from a single sheet of metal bent to form (product by process limitation, the embodiment is capable of being formed from a single sheet of metal that is bent to form, see paragraphs 131-134 which first discusses the embodiment in fig. 15 being formed of metal, then discusses the embodiment used as shown in fig. 16., which is structurally similar. The metal elements are in the form of thin sheets in the figures, and the sheets are capable of being “bent” to form at least at the corners, and the elements are capable of being “stamped” from a single sheet):
a first section of the second sheet positioned generally perpendicular in cross-section to the first direction; a second section of the second sheet positioned generally parallel in cross-section to the first direction; a third section of the second sheet positioned generally perpendicular to the first direction in cross-section; and a fourth section of the second sheet spanning between the third section and the first section and 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).
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 (shown as 41 on right in fig. 16) of the first door is formed from a sheet of metal (product by process limitation, see paragraphs 131-134 which first discusses the embodiment in fig. 15 being formed of metal, then discusses the embodiment used as shown in fig. 16., which is structurally similar. The metal elements are in the form of thin sheets in the figures, and the elements are capable of being “stamped” from a single sheet) 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).
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 formed from a second sheet of metal (product by process limitation, see paragraphs 131-134 which first discusses the embodiment in fig. 15 being formed of metal, then discusses the embodiment used as shown in fig. 16., which is structurally similar. The metal elements are in the form of thin sheets in the figures, and the elements are capable of being “stamped” from a single sheet) comprising:
a first section of the second sheet positioned generally perpendicular in cross-section to the first direction; a second section of the second sheet positioned generally parallel in cross-section to the first direction; a third section of the second sheet positioned generally perpendicular to the first direction in cross-section; and a fourth section of the second sheet 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 sheet spanning between the fourth section of the second sheet to a sixth section of the second sheet; and the sixth section of the second sheet positioned generally parallel to the second section of the second sheet and extending from the fifth section of the second sheet to a position beyond the first section of the second sheet to form a second astragal (in the same manner as the first stile, which is shown in annotated fig. 16 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues regarding the product by process limitations. The examiner again repeats that claims 1-2, and 12-13 are considered product-by-process claims. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structures implied by the steps (See MPEP 2113).
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).”
“The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979) (holding "interbonded by interfusion" to limit structure of the claimed composite and noting that terms such as "welded," "intermixed," "ground in place," "press fitted," and "etched" are capable of construction as structural limitations).”
“ONCE A PRODUCT APPEARING TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL IS FOUND AND A PRIOR ART REJECTION IS MADE, THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE APPLICANT TO SHOW AN NONOBVIOUS DIFFERENCE”
For claims 1-2, and 12-13 below, the structure in the prior art teaches the limitations required by the claim because they are capable of being assembled via the process claimed.
Again, Farag teaches that the first interior stile (shown as 41 on right in fig. 16) of the first door is formed from a single sheet of metal bent to form (product by process limitation, the embodiment is capable of being formed from a single sheet of metal that is bent to form, see paragraphs 131-134 which first discusses the embodiment in fig. 15 being formed of metal, then discusses the embodiment used as shown in fig. 16., which is structurally similar. The metal elements are in the form of thin sheets in the figures, and the sheets are capable of being “bent” to form at least at the corners, and the elements are capable of being “stamped” from a single sheet).
Conclusion
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