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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/17/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the” is recited twice as “the the” in line 9. Appropriate correction is required.
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities: “leaf” is incorrectly spelled as “leave”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim has poor grammar: “wherein the universal jamb assembly comprises strike plate… wherein the strike plate recess is adapted for allowing flush mounting of strike plate”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 and 9-11 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.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the elongated mounting strips have a substantially rectangular cuboid shape”. “Rectangular” and “cuboidal” appear to be contradictory. Cuboidal suggests a three dimensional shape that is shaped like a cube and rectangular suggests a broader two dimensional shape that may have one set of longer sides and one set of shorter sides. A review of the elongated mounting strips reveal a three dimensional shape that is not cuboidal.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “said strike plate comprising a strike plate recess”. The limitation does not make sense based on the examiner’s best understanding of the invention. The elongate mounting strip introduced in claim 1 has a strike plate recess (line 8). The strike plate is received in this recess. The “strike plate comprising a strike plate recess” contradicts parent claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Additionally, the phrase “in an embodiment” muddies the scope of the claim. The claim does not specify what the structure entails. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted to mean that the jamb is substantially solid.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the further coving" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what structure is being referenced.
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, 3-4, 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knight, US 8,887,457.
Regarding claim 1:
Knight discloses a universal jamb assembly (10a and 10b) for a door casing (10) , comprising two jambs (12) having an identical cross section (refer to Fig. 2, showing opposing sides of the jamb member) for making them universal for placement as a hinge-side jamb or as strike-plate-side jamb of the door casing and each iamb having a wall side face and a door side face, and
two elongated mounting strips (14 and 18), the elongated mounting strips having a jamb-facing face matching at least part of the door side face, one of the elongated mounting strips (14) provided with at least two hinge leave recesses for allowing hinge leave mounting and the other elongated mounting strip (18) provided with a strike plate recess for allowing strike plate mounting,
each of the jamb-facing face of the elongated mounting strips and the door side face of the jambs mutually adapted to be coupled when the elongated mounting strip is applied onto the jamb from a direction substantially normal to the longitudinal axis of the jamb,
and Knight discloses wherein the jambs are made of wood (13th paragraph).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
657
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3:
Knight discloses wherein the elongated mounting strips have a substantially rectangular cuboid shape (based on the examiner’s best understanding of what a rectangular cuboid ship entails).
Regarding claim 4:
Knight discloses wherein the elongated mounting strips have a strip mounting length and the jambs have a jamb mounting length, wherein the strip mounting length and the jamb mounting length are substantially the same (refer to Fig. 2, not the exact same, but substantially the same).
Regarding claim 6:
Knight discloses wherein the jambs have a jamb length and comprise a slot (26) in the door facing face capable of receiving a bolt and covering center of the length of the jamb.
Regarding claim 7:
Knight discloses wherein the universal jamb assembly is adapted for a flush door, wherein the jambs comprise door stop ledges (22).
Regarding claim 10:
Knight discloses wherein the jamb is substantially solid (refer to Fig. 4, it may be wood, plastic or composite).
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 8-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight, US 8,887,457 in view of McGhee, US 3,345,780.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 12-13:
Knight discloses mounting strips with spaces for the hinge plates and the strike plate and the kit and the method of installing them but does not expressly disclose the hinge plates and the strike plate.
McGhee discloses a jamb assembly having mounting strips (12) with spaces for hinge plates, wherein the hinges each have a hinge leaf with a hinge leaf thickness, wherein the hinge leaf recesses have a profile and depth adapted for flush mounting of hinge leaves. McGhee also discloses a strike plate (66) in a strike plate recess for flush mounting.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to provide a flush mounted strike plate and hinge leaves as suggested by McGhee to the jamb assembly of Knight in order to provide a clean assembly devoid of bumps that could interfere with the fitting of a door in the opening.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight, US 8,887,457 in view of Elliott et al., GB 2585893.
Regarding claim 5:
Knight does not expressly disclose wherein each elongated mounting strip has the hinge leaf recesses in one surface and the strike plate recess in its opposite surface.
Elliott discloses a jamb assembly wherein jamb members have hinge leave recesses on one side (15) and a strike plate recess on the opposite side (17, refer to Fig. 2b).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to provide recesses on opposing side of the mounting strips of Knight as suggested by Elliott in order to provide universality.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight, US 8,887,457 in view of Smith et al., EP 2,090,734.
Regarding claim 11:
Knight does not expressly disclose a coving for an architrave.
Smith discloses a universal jamb assembly comprising at least one coving and at least one further coving (35, Fig. 7) providing an architrave, wherein each coving comprises a rim extending in a longitudinal direction and extending away from the jamb, wherein at least one of the jambs has a sidewall comprising a longitudinal rim dimensioned to be received in a longitudinal groove of the coving.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to provide a coving to form an architrave structure as suggested by Smith on the jamb assembly of Knight in order to provide a decorative finish to the wall surrounding the frame.
Smith discloses the claimed coving structure except for the rim being on the jamb rather than the coving member. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to reverse the location of the rim and the groove, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. There would be no unexpected or unpredictable result obtained from reversing the locations of the rim and the groove.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the width of the mounting strip of the most relevant prior art of Knight is considerably less than 6 times larger than the thickness of the mounting strip. The mounting strip of Knight could not be made thinner without compromising the functionality of the mounting strip of Knight.
Conclusion
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 BRENT W HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-3661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6:00p MT.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights