DETAILED ACTION
The preliminary amendments received April 9, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-42 are pending and addressed below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the details are unclear. Figures 1 and 2 are substantially black. The drawings appear to be photos and the reference characters are not legible. 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.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,209,456. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same subject matter in different broader terms.
Pending claim 21 corresponds to patented claim 1 (in italics below): A loading dock door system, comprising:
a door jamb constructed from a polymer (first jamb constructed from a polymer),
wherein the door jamb is configured to receive a loading dock door (wherein the first and second jambs are configured to receive a loading dock door), and
wherein the door jamb comprises a U-shaped cross-section (wherein the first and second jambs comprise a U-shaped cross-section);
a top rail partially surrounding the door jamb (a first top rail partially surrounding the first jamb); and
a door stop removably connected to the top rail (a first door stop removably connected to the first top rail),
wherein the door stop can be removed and repositioned on the top rail to limit how far the loading dock door can be opened or closed during operation (wherein the first and second door stop can be removed and repositioned on the first and second top rails to limit how far a door can be opened or closed).
Pending claim 22 corresponds to patented claim 14. Pending claim 23 corresponds to patented claim 15. Pending claim 24 corresponds to patented claim 9. Pending claim 25 corresponds to patented claims 2-4. Pending claim 26 corresponds to patented claim 5. Patented claim 27 corresponds to patented claim 6. Pending claim 28 corresponds to patented claim 7. Pending claim 29 corresponds to patented claim 13. Pending claim 30 corresponds to patented claims 19-22.
Pending claim 31 corresponds to patented claim 1 (in italics below): A loading dock door system, comprising:
a door jamb constructed from a polymer (first jamb constructed from a polymer),
wherein the door jamb comprises a cross-section geometry (U-shaped cross-section) configured to receive a loading dock door and protect the loading dock door from an impact event (functional language);
a top rail partially surrounding the door jamb (first top rail partially surrounding the first jamb); and
a door stop removably connected to the top rail, wherein the door stop can be removed and repositioned on the top rail to limit how far the loading dock door can be opened or closed during operation (a first door stop removably connected to the first top rail…wherein the first and second door stop can be removed and repositioned on the first and second top rails to limit how far a door can be opened or closed during operation).
Pending claim 32 corresponds to patented claim 13. Pending claim 33 corresponds to patented claim 15. Pending claim 34 corresponds to patented claims 2-4. Pending claim 35 corresponds to patented claims 19-22. Pending claims 36-39 correspond to claims 1-22 in a similar manner as discussed above, with the method being obvious in view of the claimed structure. Pending claims 40-42 recite the subject matter of the patented claims in broader terms.
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 40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells (US 6,065,525) in view of Pinkalla et al. (US 5,601,134)
Regarding claim 40, loading dock door system, comprising:
a door jamb (16),
wherein the door jamb is configured to receive a loading dock door (18) (Fig 1), and
wherein the door jamb comprises a U-shaped cross-section (Fig 4);
a top rail (42) partially surrounding the door jamb (Figs 9 and 10); and
a door guide (16b’) configured to guide the loading dock door (18) into a proper position relative to the top rail (42) as the door moves between an open position and a closed position (Figs 1 and 3; col 4, lines 53-61).
Although Wells discloses a loading dock door system having a door jamb (16), it is not disclosed that the door jamb is constructed from a polymer. However, Pinkalla (US 5,601,134) teaches that it is known for a jamb of a door system to be constructed from a polymer (col 3, lines 31-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wells such that the jamb is constructed from a polymer since it is a known material choice in the art, as taught by Pinkalla. Regarding claim 42, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to choose a material such that the polymer comprises a density greater than or equal to 0.90 g/cm3 and less than or equal to 2.00 g/cm3, a the tensile failure stress of 17 MPa, an elongation after fracture is greater than or equal to 300%, or a hardness greater than or equal to 40 and less than or equal to 90 Shore A, or combinations thereof. The limitations are drawn to material characteristics and it would be obvious to provide such material as a matter of obvious design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-39 would be allowable if the double patenting rejections discussed above are overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Wells (US 6,065,525) discloses a loading dock door system, comprising: a door jamb (16), wherein the door jamb is configured to receive a loading dock door (18), and wherein the door jamb comprises a U-shaped cross-section (Fig 4); a top rail (42) partially surrounding the door jamb (Fig 4 and 10; 42 partially surround 16 at the upper end of 16); anda door stop (104) connected to the top rail (42) (Fig 9; integrally connected). Although Wells discloses a loading dock door system having a door jamb (16), it is not disclosed that the door jamb is constructed from a polymer. However, Pinkalla (US 5,601,134) teaches that it is known for a jamb of a door system to be constructed from a polymer (col 3, lines 31-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wells such that the jamb is constructed from a polymer since it is a known material choice in the art, as taught by Pinkalla. However, further modification of Wells such that the door stop is removably connected to the top rail and the door stop removable and repositioned on the top rail to limit how far the loading dock door can be opened or closed during operation would not have been obvious absent hindsight. The structure of Wells does not allow for repositioning and only allows removal of the door stop and reinstallation at the same position. Modification would have been a result of the Applicant’s teachings.
Claim 41 is rejected under the grounds of double patenting as discussed above and further 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate 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.
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights