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.
Claim 3 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.
In claim 3, line 3, it is not clear exactly what “an extension” is referring to and how this extension is related to “an extension” stated in claim 2.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by CN ‘150 (CN 208024150 U, cited in last office action).
Regarding claim 1, CN shows a door holding device (fig. 1) as claimed, including a first hinge engagement region (1, the vertical plate) comprising a first magnetic element (3); and a second engagement region (1, the horizontal plate) comprising a second magnetic element (3), wherein the door holding device is configured to hold a door in an open state (see “door catch” stated in the English translation). Intended use, “is configure…when the first magnetic element engages a first door hinge plate and the second magnetic element engages a second door hinge plate, and wherein the first door hinge plate, and wherein the first door hinge plate and the second hinge plate are directly connected to each other such that the door holding device can contact both the first door hinge plate and the second door hinge plate simultaneously” is given no patentable weight”, is given no patentable weight. CN is capable of performing identical function, and the hinge plates are not positive limitations.
As to claim 2, CN further shows an adjustment assembly (2) operable to adjust a relative distance or a relative angle between a first portion of the door holding device (any portion of the first hinge engagement region) and a second portion of the door holding device (any portion of the second hinge engagement region) responsive to an operation of the adjustment assembly (2), the adjustment assembly comprising an extension adjustment assembly (20) arranged between the second hinge engagement region (3) and an extension (4), wherein an relative distance between the second hinge engagement (3) and the extension (4) is adjustable responsive to an operation of the extension adjustment assembly.
As to claim 8, CN shows that a relative angle between the first hinge engagement region and the second engagement region is between about 70 degrees and about 110 degrees (fig. 1, e.g., showing 90 degrees).
As to claim 10, the first magnetic element (3) protrudes from the first hinge engagement region (1), and the second magnetic element (3) protrudes from the second hinge engagement region (1).
As to claim 12, the second region (1) defines an abutment region (i.e., the distal end region of plate 1) configured to engage against a door jamb. Note that the door jamb is not a positive limitation. The abutment region of CN is capable of abutting s door jamb, depending on the geometry in the door jamb region.
As to claim 18, CN shows a method of manufacturing a door holding device (fig. 1), the method comprising: forming a first engagement region comprising a first magnetic element (3); and forming a second hinge engagement region (1) comprising a second magnetic element (3). For the remaining portion of the claim, see explanation of claim 1 in paragraph 5 above).
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.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘150 (CN 208024150 U).
Regarding claim 9, CN discloses the invention as claimed but for the first and second magnets being a neodymium magnet. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a neodymium magnet or other type of magnet for the first and second magnets, since it has been hold to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to position the magnets recessed from the respective engagement regions, since applicant has not disclosed that the specific recessed position of the magnets solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the magnets protruding from the engagement regions shown by CN would perform equally well for holding the door in an open position. In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13-14 and 16-17 are allowed.
Claim 3 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 CHUCK MAH whose telephone number is (571)272-7059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00.
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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/CHUCK Y MAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677 CM
August 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights