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 .
Requirement for Information Under 37 C.F.R. 1.105
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
The applicant has submitted multiple information disclosure statements referencing documents that the applicant deems material to the patentability of the claimed invention, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.56. However, this information disclosure statement contains a large number of documents, including many that appear to be unrelated to the claimed invention upon cursory review.
MPEP 609.04(a)III states:
Although a concise explanation of the relevance of the information is not required for English language information, applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the English-language information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability.
(emphasis added). Accordingly, the examiner now requires concise explanations for those documents deemed particularly relevant to the claimed invention as information “reasonably necessary to properly examine” the application.
In particular, the examiner requests information as to which of the cited documents most closely pertain to the claimed limitations. The examiner specifically requires the applicant to identify the particular reference(s) containing the following information:
-Modular door rails
-Connection or mounting of modular components in doors or structures attached to doors
-Examination regarding the above subject matter before this or any other office
The examiner further requests information as to how the features of those particular documents, via concise explanation and/or citation of figures or passages within the documents, are relevant to the claimed limitations.
The examiner further requests explanation as to how, via explanation or citation of passages within the document(s), cited foreign and NPL documents are relevant to the claimed limitations. Note: The explanation for any foreign patent document having a US equivalent may be combined via the US document. Further, any document consisting of a US office action describing prosecution of a parent application is exempt.
Accordingly the above information is required under 37 CFR 1.105. A statement by the applicant that this information is unknown and/or not readily available, will be accepted as a complete response to this requirement.
A newly filed information disclosure statement containing only those documents that include the required information above, with the specific relevant page number(s) for any non- patent literature over 20 pages, would also be considered as a complete response to this requirement.
/Anita Y Coupe/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “340” has been used to designate both the motor and the USB port.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 200.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the battery tray of claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because:
The figures are not in keeping with 37 C.F.R. 1.84(q) as a large number of reference numerals lack the required lead lines. While underlined reference numerals are acceptable to indicate a surface or cross-section, none of the reference numerals in the figures indicate a surface or cross-section (see for example reference numeral 116 for the hollow area but shown underlined in figure 1B and thus indicating what would be the surface of the inside of the door slab). All reference numerals should have the proper lead lines (or arrows, see below).
The multi-piece MRA 212 is indicated in figure 2A with a lead line pointing to only half of the MRA. As the MRA includes slide rail 226 a lead arrow should be used in keeping with 37 C.F.R. 1.84(r)(1) to indicate the MRA includes both slide 226 and the part with open assist 22, fan 222, and battery compartment 224. A lead arrow should also be used in figure 2B.
The dowel pin 228 in figure 2A does not appear to be a pin, appears to be some sort of ring due to the black shading in the middle. The black shading should be removed to clearly show the horizontally extending pin.
Figure 3A includes two reference numeral 344s, one with a reference line and one with a reference arrow, and neither appears to point to power button 344.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0041] does not say what structure or structures correspond with reference numeral 300, the reference numeral is described as generally what is shown in figures 3A and 3B.
Paragraphs [0010], [0026], [0030], and [0036] all recite that the door slab is trimmed to accommodate the MRA or that the MRA can by assembled by trimming the existing door. There is no description of the trimming beyond the alternative of a hollow being made in paragraph [0036] so it is unclear what is meant by trimmed. The common definitions of trimmed are:
PNG
media_image1.png
543
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
48
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is unclear from the description that applicant is using trimmed in any of the above meanings. While the disclosure could be interpreted as the door slab is cut or has a “trim” feature to connect the MRA it is unclear if either of these interpretations is what is meant. Also, if the later, the term “trimmed” is typically used for decorative features not mechanical connection features.
Paragraphs [0027], [0031], and [0037]-[0039] describe the MRA as being permanently fixed or attached to the door slab. It is unclear what is meant by “permanently”. There is only a single example of the attachment structure as a dowel pin for the multi-piece MRA and no example for the single piece MRAs. In general permanent means
PNG
media_image3.png
208
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A dowel pin does not appear to be something that could affix elements indefinitely as the pin can be removed so the elements are in some way separable. As there is no attachment example for the single piece MRA embodiments it’s unclear what sort of attachment means is being used and what the metes and bounds of “permanent” attachment are.
Paragraph [0046] recites “the swing arm swings … to contract the door jamb” (limitations shorted to clarify issue). As the door jamb is a fixed member that does not contract it appears that the recitations should be “to contact the door jamb”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9, 13, and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 2 recites “a door slab”, as the door slab was previously recited in claim 1 the proper recitation is “the door slab”.
Claim 9 line 2 recites “the MRA is a single piece MRA that is permanently fixed to the door slab”. As noted with the specification objection above there are no details at all to the attachment between the single piece MRA and the door slab and thus it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “permanent” are. As there is at least and example for the multi-piece embodiment the limitation is not considered to be indefinite under 112(b). In keeping with the example (a dowel pin) the claim will be interpreted as the MRA is fixedly attached to the door slab (i.e. the MRA when attached does not move but may be removed from the door slab).
Claim 13 recites “a swing arm to contract the jamb” in line 5. As with the above specification objection is appears that “contract” should be “contact”.
Claims 16-20 all recites “the modular rail”. Examiner notes the previous recitations were “modular rail accessory” or “the MRA”. Consistent terminology should be used.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The meaning of the term “trimmed” in claim 2 is unclear because the specification does not clearly redefine the term but also does not appear to be using the term in any of its ordinary meanings (see above specification objection). Claim will be interpreted broadly as the door slab accommodates the MRA.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US patent 10066435 to Tomlinson (hereinafter Tomlinson).
Regarding claim 1, the modular door system is shown in Tomlinson in figures 104 with
a modular rail accessory (10) configured to enclose a plurality of modular components (column 5 lines 41-45), wherein,
the MRA (10) structurally constitutes one of: at least a portion of a bottom rail of a door slab (1,20) of the modular door system.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the MRA (10) is attachable to the door slab (1,20), the door slab (1,20) accommodates the MRA (1) at a bottom section, and the MRA (10) and the door slab (1,20) constitute the final size of the modular door system in Tomlinson.
Regarding claim 3, the MRA (10) is attached to a hollow area (28) of the door slab (1,20) in Tomlinson.
Regarding claim 6, the MRA (10) is detachable as a single unit from the door slab (1,20) in Tomlinson.
Regarding claim 9, as interpreted with above claim objection, the MRA (10) is a single piece MRA that is fixedly attached to the door slab (1,20) of the modular door system and the plurality of modular components are removable and replaceable for the MRA (10) in Tomlinson.
Regarding claim 10, the plurality of components includes at least a mechanical device (column 5 lines 41-45) in Tomlinson.
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomlinson in view of US patent 5921059 to Farra (hereinafter Farra).
Regarding claim 4, the MRA 910) in Tomlinson is a single housing configured to enclose the plurality of modular components, however, Tomlinson does not enclose the components entirely (i.e. the lower end of 10 is open).
A closed exterior end is shown in Farra in figure 2A where lower door housing (10) has a bottom wall (14) closing the exterior end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modular door system of Tomlinson with the closed exterior end of Farra because the closed exterior end provided the known benefit of limiting damage to the components by limiting water or dust from entering the housing.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomlinson in view of US patent 12385318 to Fink (hereinafter Fink).
Regarding claim 5, the MRA 910) in Tomlinson is a single assembly configured to enclose the plurality of modular components, however, Tomlinson does not enclose the components entirely (i.e. the lower end of 10 is open).
A closed exterior end is shown in Fink in figures 3-4 where the modular component areas (150, 154, 158) have covers (152, 156, 160) for the exterior end to enclose the modular components (130, 132, 134) in entirety.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modular door system of Tomlinson with the cover to completely enclose the components of Fink because the cover provided the known benefit of preventing ingress of debris into the component area as taught in Fink in column 12 lines 26-59.
Claim(s) 7, 8, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomlinson in view of US PG Pub 2019/0257142 to Koehl (hereinafter Koehl).
Regarding claim 7, the MRA (10) is slidably attached to the door slab (1,20) in Tomlinson.
However, Tomlinson does not teach a multi-piece arrangement.
A multi-piece arrangement is shown in Koehl in figures 1-11C with modular door (100) having a two-piece edge (105,106) with exterior piece (105) detachably mounted to interior piece (106). Examiner notes Koehl is being applied for the teaching of a two-piece arrangement, not the specific structure of the two pieces. While Koehl does not show a dowel pin mounting, a dowel pin detachable mounting is already shown in Tomlinson with dowel pin 50 (note dowel pin not defined and not well shown as noted in above drawing objection so interpreted simply as a pin-shaped connecting structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modular door system of Tomlinson with the multi-piece arrangement of Koehl because the two piece arrangement provides the known benefit of a separate attachment structure and main edge structure and allows for easy removal of the main edge as well as replacement of only the main edge in case of damage to the main edge (see also MPEP 2144.04 V Section C separation of parts obvious).
Regarding claim 8, when provided with the two-piece arrangement of Koehl, the slide mount would be attached to a hollow interior portion of the door slab (similar to the attachment of portion 16 of MRA 10 to hollow 28 in Tomlinson) and the slide mount would engage the MRA subassembly in the hollow portion in Tomlinson.
Regarding claim 11, Tomlinson does not teach smart home/door functionality or remote control.
Smart home/door functionality and remote control are shown in Koehl in figures 1-26 where modular door (100) includes smart functionality (see for example list of features including home automation in paragraphs [0061]-[0093]) and includes remote control (paragraph [0005]). Examiner notes smart functionality is not defined in the disclosure so is interpreted in keeping with common parlance as including controllable home features.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modular door system of Tomlinson with the smart functionality and remote control of Koehl because both smart functionality and remote control provide the known benefit of ease of use and better control and adjustment by the user.
Regarding claim 12, Tomlinson is silent as to a battery tray module.
A battery tray module is shown in Koehl in figures 1-26 where modular door (100) includes a battery (on module 169). The battery module (169) is only shown in the attached position, however, it is clear from module trays (150) that the modular components can be on trays that are slid into hollows.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modular door system of Tomlinson with the battery and tray module because the tray module provides the known benefit of easy mounting and dismounting of components and the battery provides the known benefit of power for various electronic components to be independent of main power.
Regarding claim 13, Tomlinson teaches end-loading and side-loading arms in column 5 lines 41-45. While examiner maintains these arms read over the claimed swing arm, if applicant disagrees examiner notes Koehl teaches LEDs (paragraph [0005]) and both motion and light sensors (paragraph [0091]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modular door system of Tomlinson with the LEDs and sensors of Koehl because LEDs provided the known benefit of lighting to door area and sensors provided the known benefit of monitoring the door and door area to better control the door.
Regarding claim 14, the plurality of modular components are removeable and replaceable from the MRA (10) in Tomlinson.
Regarding claim 15, the components can include a lock (column 5 lines 41-45) in Tomlinson, however, the Tomlinson does not teach the lock as a power latch.
A power door latch is shown in Koehl in figures 1-26 where modular door (100) has a power door latch (per paragraphs [0005], [0083], and [0110] the door includes a mechanical door lock controller that uses power per paragraph [0077] and thus teaches a powered latch or lock). When provided to Tomlinson, the control area having the power latch would be on a side surface so as to allow the latch to engage/disengage the adjacent structure (second door shown in figure 1), similar to the location of the unnumbered lock in figure 1 of Tomlinson.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modular door system of Tomlinson with the power latch of Koehl because power latches provided the known benefit of allowing for remote control of the latch.
Regarding claim 16, the MRA (10) is adjustable in size as taught in column 6 lines 27-26-33 of Tomlinson. However, Tomlinson is silent as the MRA size being adjusted based on the components.
Different sized modules for different sized components are shown in Koehl in figures 1-26 where modular door (100) has various sized modules (107a-c, 108a-C) for various sized components (162-166, 167-169). Examiner notes Koehl is being applied to teach sizing of modules based on component size, the adjustable sized MRA is already taught in Tomlinson.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modular door system of Tomlinson with the module sizing based on component sizing of Koehl because the module sizing based on component provides the known benefit of eliminating unnecessary space/material by making the module more closely fit the components.
Regarding claim 17, Tomlinson does not teach lights or sensors as components.
Lights and sensors are shown in Koehl in figures 1-26 where modular door (100) has lights (paragraphs [0005],[0069]) and sensors (paragraphs [0085],[0091]). Although Koehl is silent as to the size of the lights and sensors, examiner notes that lights (LEDs specifically in Koehl) and sensors were both known to be small components of less than about an inch and as such when Tomlinson is modified to include module sizing based on component as above the MRA the dimension of the MRA being one inch or less would be obvious to try.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modular door system of Tomlinson, having the module sizing based on component sizing of Koehl, with the lights and sensors of Koehl because lights provided the known benefit of lighting to door area and sensors provided the known benefit of monitoring the door and door area to better control the door.
Regarding claims 18-20, a portion of the MRA (10) is in a hollow (28) so less than all of the MRA is visible when installed (claim 20) and an assist arm (column 5 lines 41-45) are taught in Tomlinson, however, Tomlinson does not teach a motor (i.e. a powered arm) or a fan.
A power arm and fan are shown in Koehl in figures 1-26 where modular door (100) has power arm (powered device functionality paragraph [0077], arm already taught by Tomlinson) and a fan (environment handler paragraph [0086], a fan is an environment handler). Although Koehl is silent as to the size of the fan, examiner notes that fans and powered arms (assist arm and motor) came in a finite number of sizes for use in the MRA of Tomlinson (MRA taught as between 2 and 6 inches in column 6 lines 26-33) so the claimed fan, assist arm, and motor sizes of less than about 3, 5, or 6 inches would be obvious to try.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modular door system of Tomlinson, having the module sizing based on component sizing of Koehl, with the powered arm (i.e. motor) and fan of Koehl because powered arms provided the known benefit of limiting the effort by the user to open the door and fans provided the known benefit of improved ventilation in the door area.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A KELLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/CATHERINE A KELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619