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 § 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, 11-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Napier et al. ‘281 (US 2024/0068281 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Napier et al. shows a door holding device comprising a first hinge engagement region (22) having a first magnetic element (26); a second hinge engagement region (24) having a second magnetic element (28), wherein the door holding device is configured t hold a door in an open state when the first magnetic element engages a first door hinge plate and the second magnetic element engages a second door hinge plate (Napier et al. is capable of performing these functions, depending on how the device is mounted to the hinge); and an adjustment assembly (20) operable to adjust a relative distance or a relative angle between a first portion (18) and a second portion (contact surface of bumper 24) of the door holding device responsive to an operation of the adjustment assembly.
As to claim 2, the adjustment assembly comprises an extension adjustment assembly (20) arranged between the second hinge engagement region (24) and an extension (18), wherein a relative distance between the second hinge engagement region and the extension is adjustable responsive to an operation of the extension adjustment assembly.
As to claim 8, a relative angle between the first hinge engagement region and the second hinge engagement region is between about 70 degrees and about 110 degrees (i.e., the angle between the axis of cylindrical bumper 22 and the axis of cylindrical bumper 24 is about 70-110 degrees, the normal door opening angle).
As to claim 11, the first magnetic element (26) is recessed from the first hinge engagement region (22), and the second magnetic element (28) is recessed from the second hinge engagement region (24).
As to claim 12, the second hinge engagement region (24) defines an abutment region configured to engage against a door jamb (intended use, depending on the mounting position of the device and the door jamb structure; see fig. 2).
As to claim 13, see explanation of claims 1 and 12 above.
As to claim 14, see explanation of claim 2 above.
As to method claim 18, see explanation of claim 1 above. The apparatus shown by Napier et al. includes all structural elements as now claimed. These elements inherently include all steps of a method of manufacturing of the door holding device.
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 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Napier et al. ‘281.
Regarding claim 9, Napier et al. 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 10, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the magnets protruding from the respective engagement regions, since applicant has not disclosed that the specific protruding position of the magnets solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the magnets recessed in the engagement regions would perform equally well for holding the door in an open position. In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 15-17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Related prior art:
CN 208024150 U (CN) shows a magnetic door holding device including a first and second plates hinged together and rotatable relative to each other, a locking assembly connected between the two plates, each of the plates having a magnetic element, the locking assembly selectively engaging one of the fasten heads on the other plate to adjust the position of the two plates for holding the door relative to the door frame.
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
January 22, 2026