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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I: claims 1-10 in the reply filed on March 4, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11-21 are withdrawn as being drawn to the non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the phrase “such that surfaces taper away” should be changed to “such that the upwards facing surfaces taper away,” in lines 2 and 3, the phrase “the door handle assembly” should be changed to “the anti-ligature door handle assembly,” and in line 3, the phrase “a door” should be changed to “the door.” 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 2, 3, 6, and 9 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 regards to claim 2, it is unclear how no portion or section of a stationary surface of the handle and escutcheon is substantially parallel to a ground surface, when Figure 1 shows the handle in a stationary position and at least portions or sections of the surfaces would be substantially parallel to the ground surface, such as portions or sections of the surfaces of the lever portion and the handle extension that face the ground surface. For examination purposes, the claim will be given a broad interpretation.
In regards to claim 3, the relationship between the “surfaces” recited in line 2 and the “upwards facing surfaces” recited in line 1 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “surfaces” of line 2 are equivalent to the “surfaces” of line 1, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above. Furthermore, the relationship between the upwards facing surfaces of claim 3, the handle surface, and the escutcheon surface of claim 1 is unclear from the claim language.
In regards to claim 3, the relationship between the “door” in line 2 and the “door” in line 3 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “door” of line 3 is equivalent to the “door” of line 2, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 6, the metes and bounds of the phrase “a nearly Lambertian manner” cannot be ascertained from the claim language, i.e. the range of what is considered “nearly Lambertian.” For examination purposes, the claim will be given a broad interpretation.
In regards to claim 9, the term “high” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The value or range of “high omni-directional tensile strength” of the PTFE coating cannot be determined from the claim language.
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(s) 1-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (US-8534723) in view of Marciniak (US-5425155).
In regards to claim 1, Berger discloses an anti-ligature door handle assembly, comprising: a handle 11 having a handle surface (Figure 4); and an escutcheon 10A disposed at a base of the handle, the escutcheon having an escutcheon surface (Figure 4), with the surfaces of the handle and the escutcheon being tapered or sloped such that an end 20a of a ligature 20 slides along the surfaces of the handle and the escutcheon (see Figures 3, 4, and 6 and Col. 8, lines 19-28). Berger fails to disclose a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating disposed on at least a portion of the handle surface and at least a portion of the escutcheon surface. Marciniak teaches the use of a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating disposed on at least a portion of a surface of a handle assembly (Col. 4, lines 50-54) in order to minimize friction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating disposed on at least a portion of the handle surface and at least a portion of the escutcheon surface of the door handle assembly of Berger, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid in providing a slippery surface along which the end of the ligature slides.
In regards to claim 2, Berger discloses that the handle and escutcheon are formed such that at least a portion of a stationary surface is not substantially parallel to a ground surface (at least portion of surface at the indicator line for reference character 10A in Figure 4).
In regards to claim 3, Berger discloses that upwards facing surfaces are constructed such that the upwards facing surfaces taper away from a surface 12B of a door 12 when the anti-ligature door handle assembly is coupled to the door (Figure 4).
In regards to claim 4, although Marciniak does not specifically teach that the PTFE coating is approximately 0.75 mm thick, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify the thickness of the PTFE coating, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
In regards to claim 5, Berger in view of Marciniak teaches the basic claimed invention, where a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating is disposed on at least a portion of the handle surface and at least a portion of the escutcheon surface. Although Marciniak does not specifically teach that the PTFE coating is a sintered and skived PTFE coating, the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are process limitations relating to the method or process by which the device is being fabricated. Therefore, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. If the product in the product-by-process claims is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claims is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. This since Berger in view of Marciniak teaches the same final product as applicant, the claimed limitations are met.
In regards to claim 6, although Marciniak does not specify that the PTFE coating reflects UV light, PTFE is known to reflect UV light, as evidenced by Col. 19, line 66- Col. 20, line 4 of Kennedy et al. (US-10994040), and since PTFE is known to reflect UV light, then the coating does this in a “nearly Lambertian manner.”
In regards to claim 8, although Marciniak does not specify that the PTFE coating has a coefficient of friction between 0.05 and 0.1, PTFE is known to have a coefficient of friction between 0.05 and 0.1, as evidenced on Page 5 of the NPL Document “The Engineering ToolBox.”
In regards to claim 9, although Marciniak does not specify that the PTFE coating has a “high” omni-directional tensile strength, PTFE is known to have a “high” omni-directional tensile strength, as evidenced by Col. 6, lines 9-61 of Alvarado et al. (US-12553259).
In regards to claim 10, Berger in view of Marciniak teaches the basic claimed invention, where a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating is disposed on at least a portion of the handle surface and at least a portion of the escutcheon surface. Although Marciniak does not specifically teach that the PTFE coating is applied using a spray and cure process, the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are process limitations relating to the method or process by which the device is being fabricated. Therefore, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. If the product in the product-by-process claims is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claims is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. This since Berger in view of Marciniak teaches the same final product as applicant, the claimed limitations are met.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (US-8534723) in view of Marciniak (US-5425155) as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-10 above, and further in view of Thomas (EP 0247771 B1). Although Marciniak does not specify that the PTFE coating has a consistent pore diameter that is in a range of approximately 1-7 micrometers, Thomas teaches that it is known in the art and desirable for PTFE material to have a consistent pore diameter that is in a range of approximately 1-7 micrometers (Col. 2, lines 3-6 and Col. 5, lines 27-29), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify that the coating have a consistent pore diameter that is in a range of approximately 1-7 micrometers, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 PM.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. 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.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 March 23, 2026