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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: (1) in paragraph [0058], lines 4-5, “…fixes base 10 to the front surface and the rear surface of the door leaf” is not fully understood. Apparently, “and” should have been “or”. (2) in paragraph [0071], line 13, “the spring” should be “a spring”, as this spring is not referring to the same spring disposed between the unlocking member 330 and the lock cylinder member 310 stated in paragraph [0069]. (3) in paragraph [0097], line 1, “FIGs. 5-6” should be “FIGs 15-16”. (4) paragraph [00106] is confusing. It is unclear whether “a return spring” is referring to a spring located between the swing member 320 and the lock cylinder member 310 or a spring located between the unlocking member 330 and the lock cylinder member 310. Apparently, the description of this paragraph only defines one spring and is inconsistent with the figures (e.g., figs. 6, and 21-22).
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference “31”, first mentioned in paragraph [0069]. 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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because: (1) reference character “312” in figure 21 has been used to designate an element other than “a swing column 312” (fig. 6). (2) in figure 22, “322” is used to designate two different elements. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-19 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.
In claim 1, lines 10-11, it is not clear exactly how the door stop locks and unlocks the door leaf in the first state and in the second state. The position of the door stop, by itself, does not affect the opening/closing of the door leaf. Other engagement (e.g., to the floor surface) of the door stop is needed to lock (or stop) the door leaf, in its first state. Further, it is not clear exactly what is defined as “the second state” for unlocking the door leaf.
In claim 1, lines 12-14, it is not clear exactly how “a first locking assembly” or “a first locking member and a second locking member” are structurally (physically) related/linked to other components (i.e., the lock body and the base) of the door stop, to perform locking and unlocking. Without a proper connection, any extraneous object (such as hand tools and common gadgets) could be considered a first locking assembly to perform locking or unlocking. Further, it is not clear whether “to lock or unlock” is referring to that of the door leaf or that of the locking body and the base. Note similar issues in claim 15.
In claim 4, it is not clear what object is being positioned/limited by “a positioning mechanism or a limiting mechanism”. Claim 4 cannot be fully understood structurally and functionally.
In claim 6, lines 2-3, it is not clear what “the lock body…to be fitted to the surface of the door leaf” is intended to be meant, structurally. As best understood, the lock body is not in contact or adhered to the surface of the door leaf. Note similar issue in claim 16 (line 2) and claim 19 (line 3).
In claim 11, line 4, “…to displace and move to unlock” is confusing. It is not clear what object in which the lock column displaces and moves to unlock.
In claim 12, line 3, it is not clear what “a lock cavity port” is referring to. “a lock cavity port” is not defined in the disclosure.
In claim 15, lines 5-6, it is unclear exactly what is defined as “a first state” or “a second state”, with reference to the geometry of the door stop.
In claim 15, lines 8-9, it is not clear exactly what “a working section” and “the ground” are referring to.
In claim 15, lines 12-13, “pushing the door leaf toward the door stop” is confusing. The door stop is fixed to the door leaf. Pushing the door leaf would cause movement of both the door leaf and the door stop. It is not clear how the door leaf is pushed toward the door stop.
In claim 15, it is not clear what “two-way locking” is embraced, functionally. The claim should clearly define two-way locking, e.g., door leaf being stopped in both opening and closing directions.
In claim 16, line 1, “wherein when the door stop is fixed to the door leaf” renders the steps of the method claim confusing. For clarity, line 1 may be rewritten as “wherein the step of fixing the door stop to the door leaf including:”.
In claim 17, line 2, “provided…in advance” is not understood, because it is not clear what method step is “in advance” referring to.
In claim 19, line 2, “first locking assembly” should be replaced with “the engagement of the first locking member and the second locking member”, to clarify “unlocking” of the lock body from the first state.
Note that other claims, depending from the rejected claims, are also consider vague and indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
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:
US 2024/0384579 A1 (Wang) shows a doorstop including a base having a first surface fixed to the inner side of a door leaf, a lock body rotatable between a first position engaging a ground surface and a second position away from the ground surface, a telescopic member adjustably arranged within the base and having a second surface configured to be fixed to a bottom edge of the door leaf.
6,120,072 (Benedict) shows a doorstop having a base, the base including a first surface fixed to a door surface and a second face fixed to a bottom edge of the door leaf, and a locking body adjustably mounted to the base.
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
March 19, 2026