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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "150" in figure 4B and "160" in figure 4E have both been used to designate a reset button. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the spring-loaded mechanism component 150 as described in the specification. Note that the spring-loaded mechanism component 150 has not been shown since only the casing component 152 is shown which covers the spring-loaded mechanism component 150. See figure 4E.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
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 spring and the reset mechanism must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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: the description of figures 4A through 4E is inadequate since each of the figures needs to have its own description.
Additionally, the specification is objected to because it is unclear how the reset button or mechanism 160 operates. See lines 13-15 of paragraph 35.
Finally, the specification is objected to because it is unclear how the spring-loaded mechanism component 150 operates. See lines 6-8 of paragraph 36.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “is disclosed” on line 1 can be easily implied and therefore should be deleted. The abstract is objected to because “an automatic spring-loaded stopping design” on lines 3-4 is confusing since it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. What comprises an automatic spring-loaded stopping design? Does the invention have an automatic spring-loaded stop or is the invention merely designed to have an automatic spring-loaded stop? The abstract is objected to because pronouns such as “it” on line 6 should be replaced with the name of the element to which the pronoun refers to avoid confusion. The abstract is objected to because “the cylindrical tube” on line 7 is confusing since it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the cylinder shaped casing set forth above or is attempting to set forth another element in addition to the cylindrical-shaped casing above.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “wherein said mounting plate is attached to a door frame” on line 12 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is claiming the subcombination of the door stopping device or the combination of the door stopping device and a door and door frame. The preamble of claim 1 implies that the applicant is claiming the subcombination while the positive recitation of the door and door frame on lines 12 and 17 implies the applicant is claiming the combination.
Claim 3 is objected to because “a door” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the door set forth above or is attempting to set forth another door in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 8 is objected to because “wherein said mounting plate is attached to a door frame” on line 12 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is claiming the subcombination of the door stopping device or the combination of the door stopping device and a door and door frame. The preamble of claim 8 implies that the applicant is claiming the subcombination while the positive recitation of the door and door frame on lines 12 and 17 implies the applicant is claiming the combination.
Claim 10 is objected to because “a door” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the door set forth above or is attempting to set forth another door in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 15 is objected to because “wherein said mounting plate is attached to a door frame” on line 12 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is claiming the subcombination of the door stopping device or the combination of the door stopping device and a door and door frame. The preamble of claim 15 implies that the applicant is claiming the subcombination while the positive recitation of the door and door frame on lines 12 and 17 implies the applicant is claiming the combination.
Claim 17 is objected to because “a door” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the door set forth above or is attempting to set forth another door in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 20 is objected to because “a door” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the door set forth above or is attempting to set forth another door in addition to the one set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FR 2 930 583. FR 2 930 583 discloses a door stopping device comprising:
a door stopper 7;
a mounting plate 8;
a rotating arm (labeled below);
a casing component 4;
a spring 3; and
a reset mechanism (labeled below);
wherein said rotating arm pivotable in said casing component 4;
wherein said mounting plate 8 having at least one through opening 9 for receiving at least one fastener;
wherein said mounting plate is a flat surface mounting component;
wherein said mounting plate is attached to a door frame with said at least one fastener mounted to the door frame;
wherein said spring 3 positioned inside said casing component (note that since a portion of the spring is inside the casing component, the spring is inside the casing component);
wherein said rotating arm having a forward pivotal engagement position and a rearward pivotal disengagement position; and
further wherein said forward pivotal engagement position prohibiting a door from mating with the door frame (claim 1);
wherein said casing component 4 is a cylindrical casing component (claim 2).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2 930 583 as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of WO 2005/059284. FR 2 930 583 discloses a sleeve (labeled below), but is silent concerning the sleeve surrounding the rotating arm.
However, WO 2005/059284 discloses a door stopping device comprising a sleeve 22, wherein said sleeve 22 is secured around a rotating arm 26 for protecting a finish of a door. Note that the sleeve 22 is made from a rubber as set forth on lines 25-26 of page 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide FR 2 930 583 with a rubber sleeve that is secured around the arm, as taught by WO 2005/059284, with a reasonable expectation of success to protect the door, door frame or other objects should they come into contact with the rotating arm.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2 930 583 in view of WO 2005/059284 as applied to claim 3 above.
FR 2 930 583, as modified above, discloses that the reset mechanism is an actuation button (labeled below) positioned at a middle of the casing component 4 to disengage said door stopper, but is silent concerning positioning the button at a bottom of the casing component 4.
However, 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 position the button at a bottom of the casing component with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a user to more easily actuate the button while still positioning the door stopping device at a sufficient height.
With respect to claim 5, FR 2 930 583, as modified above, discloses that the sleeve 26 is made from a material selected from the group consisting of a rubber (see line 26 of page 3), a plastic, and a silicone.
With respect to claim 6, FR 2 930 583, as modified above, discloses that the reset mechanism actuates said spring 3 for releasing said rotating arm to move from said forward pivotal engagement position to said rearward pivotal disengagement position.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2 930 583 in view of WO 2005/059284 as applied to claims 4-6 above, and further in view of Zarnoti (US 2009/0090144). FR 2 930 583, as modified above, is silent concerning the specific material from which the door stopping device is made.
However, Zarnoti discloses a door stopping device comprising steel as set forth on line 4 of paragraph 23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide FR 2 930 583, as modified above, with a steel construction, as taught by Zarnoti, with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the door stopping device with high strength at a reasonable cost.
Claims 8, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2 930 583. FR 2 930 583 discloses a door stopping device comprising:
a door stopper 7;
a mounting plate 8;
a rotating arm (labeled below);
a casing component 4;
a spring 3; and
a reset mechanism (labeled below);
wherein said rotating arm pivotable in said casing component 4;
wherein said mounting plate 8 having at least one through opening 9 for receiving at least one fastener;
wherein said mounting plate 8 is a flat surface mounting component;
wherein said mounting plate 8 is attached to a door frame with said at least one fastener mounted to the door frame;
wherein said spring 3 is positioned inside said casing component (note that since a portion of the spring is inside the casing component, the spring is inside the casing component);
wherein said rotating arm having a forward pivotal engagement position and a rearward pivotal disengagement position;
wherein said forward pivotal engagement position prohibiting a door from mating with the door frame; and
further wherein said reset mechanism is an actuation button (labeled below) (claim 8);
wherein said casing component 4 is a cylindrical casing component as shown in figure 3 (claim 9);
wherein said reset mechanism (labeled below) actuates said spring 3 for releasing said rotating arm (labeled below) to move from said forward pivotal engagement position to said rearward pivotal disengagement position (claim 13).
FR 2 930 583 is silent concerning the button being positioned at a bottom of the casing component.
However, 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 position the button at a bottom of the casing component with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a user to more easily actuate the button while still positioning the door stopping device at a sufficient height.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2 930 583 as applied to claims 8, 9 and 13 above, and further in view of WO 2005/059284. FR 2 930 583, as modified above, discloses a sleeve (labeled below), but is silent concerning the sleeve surrounding the rotating arm.
However, WO 2005/059284 discloses a door stopping device comprising a sleeve 22, wherein said sleeve 22 is secured around a rotating arm 26 for protecting a finish of a door. Note that the sleeve 22 is made from a rubber as set forth on lines 25-26 of page 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide FR 2 930 583, as modified above, with a rubber sleeve that is secured around the arm, as taught by WO 2005/059284, with a reasonable expectation of success to protect the door, door frame or other objects should they come into contact with the rotating arm.
With respect to claim 11, FR 2 930 583, as modified above, discloses that the sleeve 22 is made from rubber.
With respect to claim 12, FR 2 930 583, as modified above, discloses that the reset mechanism (labeled below) actuates said spring 3 for releasing said rotating arm to move from said forward pivotal engagement position to said rearward pivotal disengagement position.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2 930 583 in view of WO 2005/059284 as applied to claims 8, 9 and 13 above, and further in view of Zarnoti (US 2009/0090144). FR 2 930 583, as modified above, is silent concerning the specific material from which the door stopping device is made.
However, Zarnoti discloses a door stopping device comprising steel as set forth on line 4 of paragraph 23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide FR 2 930 583, as modified above, with a steel construction, as taught by Zarnoti, with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the door stopping device with high strength at a reasonable cost.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2 930 583. FR 2 930 583 discloses a door stopping device comprising:
a door stopper 7;
a mounting plate 8;
a rotating arm (labeled below);
a casing component 4;
a spring; and
a reset mechanism (labeled below);
wherein said rotating arm pivotable in said casing component 4;
wherein said mounting plate 8 having at least one through opening 9 for receiving at least one fastener;
wherein said mounting plate 8 is a flat surface mounting component;
wherein said mounting plate 8 is attached to a door frame with said at least one fastener mounted to the door frame;
wherein said spring 3 is positioned inside said casing component (note that since a portion of the spring is inside the casing component, the spring is inside the casing component);
wherein said rotating arm having a forward pivotal engagement position and a rearward pivotal disengagement position;
wherein said forward pivotal engagement position prohibiting a door from mating with the door frame;
wherein said reset mechanism is an actuation button (labeled below);
further wherein said reset mechanism actuates said spring 3 for releasing said rotating arm to move from said forward pivotal engagement position to said rearward pivotal disengagement position (claim 15);
wherein said casing component is a cylindrical casing component (claim 16).
FR 2 930 583 is silent concerning the button being positioned at a bottom of the casing component.
However, 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 position the button at a bottom of the casing component with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a user to more easily actuate the button while still positioning the door stopping device at a sufficient height.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2 930 583 as applied to claims 15 and 16 above, and further in view of WO 2005/059284. FR 2 930 583, as modified above, discloses a sleeve (labeled below), but is silent concerning the sleeve surrounding the rotating arm.
However, WO 2005/059284 discloses a door stopping device comprising a sleeve 22, wherein said sleeve 22 is secured around a rotating arm 26 for protecting a finish of a door. Note that the sleeve 22 is made from a rubber as set forth on lines 25-26 of page 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide FR 2 930 583, as modified above, with a rubber sleeve that is secured around the arm, as taught by WO 2005/059284, with a reasonable expectation of success to protect the door, door frame or other objects should they come into contact with the rotating arm.
With respect to claim 18, FR 2 930 583, as modified above, discloses that the sleeve 22 is made from rubber.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2 930 583 in view of WO 2005/059284 as applied to claims 17 and 18 above, and further in view of Zarnoti (US 2009/0090144). FR 2 930 583, as modified above, is silent concerning the specific material from which the door stopping device is made.
However, Zarnoti discloses a door stopping device comprising steel as set forth on line 4 of paragraph 23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide FR 2 930 583, as modified above, with a steel construction, as taught by Zarnoti, with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the door stopping device with high strength at a reasonable cost.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2 930 583 as applied to claims 15 and 16 above, and further in view of WO 2005/059284. FR 2 930 583, as modified above, discloses a sleeve (labeled below), but is silent concerning the sleeve surrounding the rotating arm.
However, WO 2005/059284 discloses a door stopping device comprising a sleeve 22, wherein said sleeve 22 is secured around a rotating arm 26 for protecting a finish of a door.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide FR 2 930 583, as modified above, with a sleeve that is secured around the arm, as taught by WO 2005/059284, with a reasonable expectation of success to protect the door, door frame or other objects should they come into contact with the rotating arm.
PNG
media_image1.png
1662
1120
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634