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 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 21-40 are 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.
Regarding claim 21, Applicant states that one of a deadbolt and door latch would be inserted into the locking member opening, however it is unclear how this is possible as the specifications and drawings only show one locking member opening receiving the deadbolt or door latch, but not both. For the purposes of examination, claim 21 is considered to read “one of a deadbolt or a door latch”.
Claims 22-40 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 21.
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) 21,23-30,32, 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas et al. US 5118151 and further in view of Schamel US 2795452.
Regarding claim 21, Nicholas teaches a door assembly (6) comprising:
a door (6) comprising a door stile (side of door), the door stile defining a locking member opening (not labeled, aligned with central apertures of plates in fig2, where the dead bolt would come out of door from);
one of a deadbolt or a door latch (col.4 line 31-32);
a door reinforcement set (upper and lower plates 32, fig2) connected to the door stile, the door reinforcement set comprising:
a first reinforcement member (upper 32, fig2) connected to the door stile; and
a second reinforcement member (lower 32, fig2) connected to the door stile, the locking member opening being disposed between the first reinforcement member and the second reinforcement member (fig2),
each of the first reinforcement member and the second reinforcement member comprising:
a plate having a width (fig2),
the width of the plate being contained within a width of the door stile (fig2),
the plate having a generally rectangular perimeter,
the plate defining an internal opening (30) with the generally rectangular perimeter (fig2),
Nicholas does not teach the concept of using hooks to maintain the position of a plate, explicitly, Nicholas does not teach:
a plurality of hooks extending from a face of the plate, the face of the plate abutting the door stile;
the plurality of hooks being inserted in the door stile.
Schamel teaches a reinforcement device (36,38) comprising two reinforcement members (36,38), each reinforcement member comprising:
a plate (each 36 and 38 is a plate); and
a plurality of hooks (plurality of 44 and 54, respectively on each plate, fig3) extending from a face (not explicitly labeled – the back face, see fig3) of the plate, the face of the plate abutting the door stile (door jamb 8) ;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to provide the device of Nicholas with the addition of a plurality of hooks extending on a face of the plate, the face of the plate abutting the door stile, a concept as taught by Schamel, in order to provide a column type of holding action on the device (Schamel, col. 1 lines 43-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to rearrange the combined device of Nicholas and Schamel on the door stile of the door, the plurality of hooks inserted in the door stile, in order to provide a secure plate for one of the deadbolt or latch.
Regarding claim 23, Nicholas in view of Schamel further teaches the door assembly of claim 21, further comprising a faceplate (Nicholas, 2) fastened to (based on rearrangement medication above) the door stile; and
wherein:
the faceplate defines a faceplate opening (Nicholas, 6) aligned with the locking member opening; and
the first reinforcement member and the second reinforcement member are disposed between the faceplate and the door stile. (Nicholas, fig2)
Regarding claim 24, Nicholas in view of Schamel further teaches the door assembly of claim 23, wherein the faceplate fully covers the first reinforcement member and the second reinforcement member. (Nicholas fig1)
Regarding claim 25, Nicholas in view of Schamel further teaches the door assembly of claim 23, further comprising:
a first screw (Nicholas, upper 8) fastening the face plate to the door stile, the first screw passing through the internal opening of the first reinforcement member; and
a second screw (Nicholas, lower 8) fastening the face plate to the door stile, the first screw passing through the internal opening of the second reinforcement member. (Nicholas, fig1-2)
Regarding claim 26, Nicholas in view of Schamel further teaches the door assembly of claim 23, wherein the first reinforcement member and the second reinforcement member are integrated with (Nicholas, when assembled, fig1) the faceplate.
Regarding claim 27, Nicholas in view of Schamel further teaches the door assembly of claim 21, wherein each of the first reinforcement member and the second reinforcement member further comprises one or more barbs (Schamel, pointed end of 44,54) formed on one or more hooks (Schamel, one or more of 44,54) of the plurality of hooks. (Schamel fig3)
Regarding claim 28, Nicholas in view of Schamel further teaches the door assembly of claim 21, wherein, for each of the first reinforcement member and the second reinforcement member, hooks of the plurality of hooks (Schamel) neighbor the internal opening. (Schamel fig3)
Regarding claim 29, Nicholas in view of Schamel further teaches the door assembly of claim 21, wherein, for each of the first reinforcement member and the second reinforcement member, the plate defines additional openings (Schamel openings created by the hooks being separated from the plate material, fig3) adjacent to the internal opening.
Regarding claim 30, Nicholas in view of Schamel further teaches the door assembly of claim 29, wherein, for each of the first reinforcement member and the second reinforcement member, the plurality of hooks is formed by cutting and bending material (as shown in Schamel, fig3 – the hooks are bent material from the plate via “stabbing of the plate” – i.e. cutting of the plate - Schamel col.2 lines 30-40) of the plate for forming the internal opening (via cutting) and the additional openings.
Regarding claim 32, Nicholas in view of Schamel further teaches the door assembly of claim 21, wherein:
the door stile defines a mortise (Nicholas fig1-2, based on rearrangement, this is the hole in the door stile that would receive the two reinforcement members); and
the first reinforcement member and the second reinforcement member are disposed in the mortise. (Nicholas fig1-2)
Regarding claim 35, Nicholas in view of Schamel further teaches the door assembly of claim 21, wherein, for each of the first reinforcement member and the second reinforcement member, hooks of the plurality of hooks each have a hook height and a hook width, hook height being perpendicular to the width of the door stile (Schamel fig1-3).
Schamel does not explicitly teach the hook height being smaller than the hook width, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the hook so that its height is smaller than its width since a change in size is a design consideration that is of routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144).
Regarding claim 36, Nicholas in view of Schamel further teaches the door assembly of claim 21, further comprising a door frame (not explicitly shown, includes door jamb, Nicholas fig1-2) having a door jamb (Nicholas, specifically the surface of the door jamb); and
wherein:
the door is pivotally connected to the door frame;
the locking member opening is a first locking member opening;
the door jamb define a second locking member opening (the opening in the door jamb that receives the insertion of the deadbolt); and
with the door closed, the second locking member opening is aligned with the first locking member opening. (Nicholas fig1-2, not explicitly labeled but based on door lock description in Nicholas, col4 lines 1-65)
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas et al. US 5118151 and Schamel US 2795452 as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of Oldberding US 20150218878.
Regarding claim 22, Nicholas in view of Schamel further teaches the door assembly of claim 21, wherein:
the one of the deadbolt (Nicholas) or (see 112 above) the door latch is the deadbolt; and
the door assembly further comprising a deadbolt lock (Nicholas, col.4 line 31-32, the deadbolt and its associated components is the deadbolt lock) comprising the deadbolt.
However, the combination of Nicholas and Schamel does not further teach:
the door defines a cylinder opening perpendicular to the locking member opening;
the door assembly further comprising a deadbolt lock comprising the deadbolt and a cylinder operatively connected to the deadbolt; and
the cylinder is received in the cylinder opening.
Oldberding teaches a door assembly comprising a door (48) that defines a cylinder opening (opening for 34/72) perpendicular to the locking member opening (opening for 70, fig4);
a cylinder (72) operatively connected to the deadbolt;
the cylinder is received in the cylinder opening (fig4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nicholas with the addition of the cylinder and corresponding cylinder opening in the door stile as taught by Olberding since they are considered to be functionally equivalent because Nicholas remains silent to the specifics of the deadbolt lock system itself and the replacement of one deadbolt system (Nicholas) with another (Olberding) when they perform the same function (deadlocking) is a design consideration that is of routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas et al. US 5118151 and Schamel US 2795452 as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of Su US 6826937.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Nicholas and Schamel further teaches the door assembly of claim 21, wherein:
the one of the deadbolt and the door latch is the deadbolt (Nicholas col.4 line 31-32);
Su teaches a door assembly wherein:
the door assembly further comprises a deadbolt guide (cylinder of 3 for deadbolt 32, fig1) inserted in the locking member opening (in door 4, see fig1); and
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 device of Nicholas with the deadbolt guide as taught by Su in order to provide a means for housing the deadbolt in the locking member opening (Su fig1).
The combination of Nicholas, Schamel and Su further teaches:
the first reinforcement member and the second reinforcement member are integrated with the deadbolt guide.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas et al. US 5118151 and Schamel US 2795452 as applied to claim 21 and 36 above and further in view of Vigneault et al. US 5474347.
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Nicholas and Schamel further teaches the door assembly of claim 36, however does not teach it further comprising a back plate connected to and abutting the door jamb; and
wherein:
the door jamb is disposed between the back plate and the door;
the back plate has a plurality of projections inserted in the door jamb.
Vigneault teaches a door assemblly comprising a back plate (10) connected to and abutting the door jamb (fig3); and wherein:
the door jamb is disposed between the back plate and the door;
the back plate has a plurality of projections (plurality of 19) inserted into the door jamb (20)
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 combined device of Nicholas and Schamel with an additional reinforcing back plate with projections inserted in the door jamb, as taught by Vigneault, in order to provide an increased reinforcing force for the frame that is not visible on the exterior of the frame (Vigneault, col.1 lines 1-10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31,33,38-40 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.
Regarding claim 31, references of record do not teach the long sides of the plates of the reinforcing members of claim 31 to include an indentation. Examiner can find no reason to combine or modify references of record to teach both claims 21 and 31 without the use of impermissible hindsight. Although Nicholas does teach an indention (dip between 32 and 18), this is on the short side of the plate (fig2). Nicholas does show plate 36 having indentations, but this is not the plate of the reinforcing member.
Regarding claim 33, the bridges, and the two reinforcing members do not surround the locking member opening based on the definition of surround as “be all around” (according to Oxford Languages Online).
Regarding claims 38-39: references of record do not teach third and fourth reinforcement members as well as the limitations of the preceding claims.
Examiner can find no reason to combine or modify references of record without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art is related to door assemblies.
Related but not relied upon prior art: US 11248392, US 11142916, US 20170058562.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIA F. AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Christine M. Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/F.F.A./
Examiner
Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675