DETAILED ACTION
This final office action is in response to the claims filed on August 8, 2026.
The replacement figures filed August 8, 2026 have been approved.
Status of claims: claim 7 is cancelled; claims 1-6 and 8-22 are hereby examined below.
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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claims 1 and 22 – “no portion of the sill rises above the single virtual plane.”
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10077594 to Fingerle.
Fingerle discloses a door, wherein the door comprises:
a) a sill 52 with a running rail; (see FIG. 10)
b) a leaf 50 configured to be displaced in parallel with the running rail;
c) a carriage 12 on a which the leaf is supported downward on the running rail; wherein the carriage comprises a roller part with a running roller 25,26 rolling on the running rail and a control cam 10 (see FIGS. 2,7) running at least in sections at an angle to a main plane of the leaf, wherein the roller part is designed to be movable transversely to the main plane of the leaf; (see FIG. 2)
and the leaf comprises a driving bar 2 with a control pin 9 which is arranged or formed on the driving bar and protrudes into the control cam wherein a movement of the driving bar in a direction of its longitudinal axis causes a movement of the roller part transverse to the main plane of the leaf in order to move the leaf transversely to the running rail; (see FIG. 2)
wherein the sill comprises recesses on the upper side, (see annotated FIG. 10 below)
wherein the recesses at their uppermost point are delimited by jump lines extending in parallel with the running rail, wherein all the jump lines lie along or at most 3 mm below a single virtual plane (in this case, the jump lines lie “along” a single virtual plane; “along” has been interpreted broadly) that is horizontally disposed and no portion of the sill rises above the single virtual plane (see annotated figure below), wherein all the jump lines at their uppermost point cooperatively form a wheeled support that is particularly easy to roll over for wheeled devices.
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the sill comprises recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and/or whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill, perhaps causing injury, when passing through the door, to minimize dirt, debris, and water buildup in the recesses as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and/or whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill, perhaps causing injury, when passing through the door and to minimize dirt, debris, and water buildup in the recesses. (claim 1)
[AltContent: textbox (Virtual plane)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Uppermost points of the recesses – claim 1)][AltContent: textbox (Leaf recess – claim 2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Recesses – claim 1)][AltContent: textbox (Sections of the underside of the leaf)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
492
212
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
108
132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fingerle further discloses where the leaf at its underside dips in sections into a leaf recess of the sill wherein the leaf extends in sections below the upper side of the sill. (see annotated FIG. 10 above) (claim 2)
Fingerle further discloses wherein the leaf recess and/or the leaf comprises a sealing strip 55 which extends in parallel with the running rail and via which the leaf in its closed position in the leaf recess bears against the sill in a sealing manner. (see FIG. 10 above) (claim 3)
Fingerle further discloses wherein the leaf comprises an extension part extending down. (see one of the “sections of the underside of the lead” annotated in FIG. 10 above) (claim 6)
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fingerle, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 11098513 to Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu”)
Fingerle further discloses wherein the leaf extends at its underside in sections near the uppermost point of the running rail, but fails to disclose the leaf extends at its underside in sections below the uppermost point of the running rail.
Liu teaches the leaf 11 extends at its underside in sections below the uppermost point of the running rail. (see annotated Fig. 5 below)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Running rail)][AltContent: textbox (Sections of underside)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
430
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the Fingerle leaf sections below the uppermost point of the running rail, as taught by Liu, in order to minimize dirt and debris from passing under the leaf and to minimize drafts and unwanted airflow below the leaf. (claim 4)
Fingerle fails to disclose the running rail is formed on a pivotable rail.
Liu teaches of the running rail that is formed on a pivotable rail. (see FIG. 5 above of Liu. Note the running rail is attached to a larger body rail, wherein the larger body rail is detachable and pivotable about element 21.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the running rail disclosed in Fingerle with the running rail taught in Liu with a reasonable expectation of success in order to assist with assembly of the door, particularly with placement of the leaf on the sill as well as to assist with maintenance of the sill since if an issue with the running rail were to arise, only the running rail and the entire sill would require replacement. (claim 5)
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015010925 to Fingerle, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of CN 20150595052.
Fingerle further discloses wherein the sill comprises a first guide groove extending in parallel with the running rail, wherein a first projection 13 of the carriage into the first guide groove wherein the carriage can be supported via the first projection on the side wall of the first guide groove and/or the side of the running rail when the leaf is loaded transversely to an extension of the running rail. (see annotated FIG. 10 below)
Fingerle fails to disclose the first projection extends down beyond the runner roller.
CN 20150595052 teaches of several projections 162, including a first projection 162, that extends down beyond a running rail 342. (see FIGS. 1 and 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap the Fingerle first projection with the projections that extends down beyond the runner rail as taught in CN 20150595052 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to further secure the leaf along the running rail since extending the projection beyond the runner roller would increase contact between the first projection and running rail and sill. (claim 8)
Fingerle, as applied above, further discloses wherein the first projection comprises a bearing that can roll on a side wall of the first guide groove and/or a side of the running rail when the lead is loaded transversely to the extension of the running rail. (see annotated FIG. 10 below and FIG. 1 of CN 20150595052) (claim 9)
Fingerle, as applied above, further discloses wherein the roller part comprises an attachment 164 with the first projection, which is fastened to a roller part body 146. (see FIG. 1 of CN 20150595052) (claim 10)
PNG
media_image4.png
414
616
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fingerle, as applied above, further discloses wherein the roller part comprises a second projection which extends down beyond the running roller into the first guide groove wherein the carriage can be supported via the second projection on a side wall of the first guide groove and/or the side of the running rail when the leaf is loaded transversely to the extension of the running rail. (see FIGS. 1 and 2 of CN 20150595052) (claim 11)
Fingerle, as applied above, further discloses wherein the first projection and the second projection are formed identically. (claim 12)
Fingerle, as applied above, further discloses wherein the sill comprises a second guide groove extending in parallel with the running rail, wherein the running rail is arranged or formed between the first guide groove and the second guide groove when viewed horizontally, and wherein a further projection 162 of the carriage (see FIG. 1 of CN 20150595052 and FIG. 10 above) extends down beyond the running roller into the second guide groove wherein the carriage can be supported via the further projection on the side wall of the second guide groove and/or the side of the running rail when the leaf is loaded transversely to the extension of the running rail. (claim 13)
Fingerle, as applied above, further discloses wherein the first projection and the further projection are formed identically. (claim 14)
Fingerle, as applied above, further discloses wherein the sill comprises a first guide groove extending in parallel with the running rail, wherein a first projection of the carriage extends down beyond the running roller into the first guide groove wherein the carriage can be supported via the first projection on the side wall of the first guide groove and/or the side of the running rail when the leaf is loaded transversely to the extension of the running rail, wherein the roller part comprises an attachment 164 with the first projection, which is fastened to a roller part body 146, (see FIG. 1 of CN 20150595052) and wherein the attachment is formed mirror-symmetrically to a virtual plane extending vertically and in the longitudinal direction of the running rail in the middle of the running rail. (claim 15)
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fingerle, as applied to claim 1 above.
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 16)
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 45 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 45 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 45 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 17)
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 40 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 40 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 40 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 18)
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 19)
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 45 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 45 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 45 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 20)
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 40 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 40 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 40 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 21)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the applicant’s response filed August 4, 2026, the applicant states
PNG
media_image5.png
272
672
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, claim 1 recites “the sill comprises recesses on an upper side … wherein the recesses at their uppermost point are delimited by jump lines” The claim simply recites recesses and the examiner identified two of the recesses in Fingerle, as noted in annotated FIG. 10 above. The claim does not require the “recesses” to constitute all of the sill recesses on the upper side. Put another way, the claim does not recite that all of the sill recesses on an upper side thereof are delimited by jump lines … Thus, applicant’s interpretation that Fingerle’s sill has four equivalent jump lines isn’t reflected or required by the recitations of claims 1 and 22.
On pages 12-13 of the applicant’s response filed August 8, 2026, the applicant contends
PNG
media_image6.png
424
660
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees and reminds the applicant that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
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 MARCUS MENEZES whose telephone number is (571)272-5225. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30 -4 PST.
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.
/MARCUS MENEZES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights