DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to the claims filed on January 30, 2026.
The replacement figures filed January 30, 2026 have been approved.
The amendments to the specification filed January 30, 2026 have been approved.
The terminal disclaimed filed January 30, 2026 has been approved.
Note: the status identifier of claim 32 is incorrect. The status identifier should be “Currently Amended” rather than “Previously Presented.” Although a Notice of non-compliant amendment may have been issued, in order to expedite prosecution, the examiner has interpreted claim 32 to be “Currently Amended,” however proper claim status identifiers must be used in any subsequently filed claims.
Status of claims: claims 1-22, 26, 27, 29, 30 and 42 are cancelled; claims 23-25, 28, 31-41, 43-47 are hereby examined below.
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 Objections
Claims 24, 25, 28, 31, 32, 41 and 45-47 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24, line 1 – shouldn’t “breakaway sliding door assembly” be amended to “system”
Claim 25, line 1 – shouldn’t “breakaway sliding door assembly” be amended to “system”
Claim 28, line 1 – shouldn’t “breakaway sliding door assembly” be amended to “system”
Claim 31, line 1 – shouldn’t “breakaway sliding door assembly” be amended to “system”
Claim 32, line 9 – shouldn’t “during closing” be amended to “during a closing”
Claim 41, line 7 – shouldn’t “during closing” be amended to “during a closing”
Claim 45, line 1 – shouldn’t “breakaway sliding door” be deleted
Claim 46, line 1 – shouldn’t “breakaway sliding door” be deleted
Claim 47, line 1 – shouldn’t “breakaway sliding door” be deleted
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
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 limitations of claim 43 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 32, 33 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0083013 to Nicholson in view of US 6058665 to Halvorson, Jr. et al. (hereinafter “Halvorson”).
Nicholson discloses a breakaway sliding door assembly, comprising:
a movable rail 35,24,27,42 (see FIG. 8A) mounted for sliding movement relative to a stationary rail 4 to thereby permit the breakaway sliding door assembly to slide between an open linear position (FIG. 3) and a closed linear position (FIG. 1), the movable rail comprising
a first bracket 35; (see FIG. 8A)
a wing 16, 18-20 pivotably mounted to the movable rail (see FIG. 6) for swinging movement between a closed pivotal position (FIG. 1) and an open pivotal position (FIG. 2), the wing comprising a second element 44,46,48, wherein the first bracket and the second element are operable to engage one another to thereby cause the wing to hang from the movable rail; and
a ramp 50,51 (see FIG. 8A) configured to lift the wing during closing pivotal movement of the wing.
Nicholson fails to disclose the second element is a bracket.
Halvorson teaches of a similar device with a first bracket 381 and second bracket 380. (see FIGS. 23-25 and cols. 14 and 15)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap element 44 of the Nicholson second element with a second bracket, as taught in Halvorson, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve sliding engagement of the second bracket with the first bracket due to the similar shapes of the two brackets. Furthermore, it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (see MPEP 2144.06 II) (claim 32)
Nicholson, as applied above, further discloses wherein at least one of the first bracket or the second bracket comprises the ramp. (see FIG. 8A; the first bracket comprises the ramp) (claim 33)
Nicholson, as applied above, further discloses a latch 40 operable to selectively retain the wing in the closed pivotal position. (see FIG. 7 and [0043]) (claim 35)
Nicholson, as applied above, further discloses wherein the latch is movable between a blocking position (illustrated in dashed lines in FIG. 7; see [0043]) in which the latch retains the wing in the closed pivotal position, and an unblocking position (illustrated in solid lines in FIG. 7; see [0043]) in which the latch does not retain the wing in the closed pivotal position; and wherein the latch is configured to permit the wing to move from the closed pivotal position toward an open pivotal position only when the breakaway sliding door assembly is in the closed linear position. (see FIG. 9 and [0043]; note: FIG. 9 illustrates the door assembly in the closed linear position and only in this position does the latch 40 engage element 76 on the frame assembly allowing for the pivoting of the wing) (claim 36)
Nicholson, as applied above, further discloses a breakaway sliding door system comprising the breakaway sliding door assembly of claim 36 and further comprising a frame assembly 3,4,76 including the stationary rail 4 and a side jamb having a vertical orientation;
wherein the side jamb is configured to move the latch from the blocking position to the unblocking position as the breakaway sliding door assembly moves from the open linear position to the closed linear position. (see FIG. 9 and [0043]) (claim 37)
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholson in view of Halvorson, as applied to claim 32 above, in further view of US 12397700 to Schultz.
Nicholson, as applied above, fails to disclose a support roller positioned on a bottom of the wing.
Schultz teaches of a support roller 120 positioned on a bottom of a wing 3 and configured to support the wing during pivotal movement of the wing. (see FIGS. 2 and 3 and col. 4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the wing disclosed in Nicholson with the support roller taught in Schultz with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate and support pivoting of the wing. Furthermore, by combining Schultz with Nicholson, Nicholson, as applied above, further discloses wherein the ramp is configured to lift the wing during closing pivotal movement of the wing to thereby remove at least some weight of the wing from the roller. (claim 34)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-25, 28, 31, 38-41 and 43-47 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 30, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive with regard to claims 23 and 38.
Applicant’s remarks filed January 30, 2026 with regard to claim 32 has been considered and is not persuasive. More specifically, the Nicholson wing comprising a second element 44,46,48. And, as noted in applicant’s response, element 44 of the wing “slides up the ramp 50 and rests against the carrier 35 when the door is closed.” (see [0045] and FIG. 8A) Therefore, since at least element 44 is part of the wing and element 44 “slides up” during pivotal closing of the wing, Nicholson discloses “a ramp configured to lift the wing during closing pivotal movement of the wing,” as recited in claim 32.
Regarding applicant’s response regarding claim 34, the examiner respectfully disagrees and submits the applicant’s remarks amount to mere supposition.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS MENEZES whose telephone number is (571)272-5225. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8-5 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Cahn can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Marcus Menezes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights