DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application filed 4/10/2026.
Status of the claims: Claims 1-20 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 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 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.
Claims 9 and 10 recites that elements are positioned “downstream”. It is unclear what is exactly meant by downstream in the context of this device.
Claim 11 recites “preferably”. It is unclear if the limitations that follow “preferably” are actually required.
Claims are being examined as best understood.
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 1-10,13,15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al KR20220065443.
In regard to claim 1, Kim et al ‘443 disclose a shock absorber (A, Fig. 2) for damping the travel of a leaf (DR, Fig. 1) of a manually operated sliding door, the shock absorber (A) comprising: an abutment member (40, Fig. 3) configured to be struck by an actuation member (SR, Fig. 1); and a shock absorber member (20, Fig. 4) configured to damp the travel of the abutment member (SR) in a damping direction (left/right, Fig. 7b) ; and wherein the abutment member (40) pivots between a rest position (Fig. 7c) , in which the abutment member (40) is inclined with respect to the damping direction, and an engagement position (Fig. 7b), in which the abutment member (40) is aligned with the damping direction.
In regard to claim 2, Kim et al ‘443 disclose further comprising a guide (10, Fig. 4) configured to cause the pivoting of the abutment member (40) from the rest position to the engagement position, and from the engagement position to the rest position.
In regard to claim 3, Kim et al ‘443 disclose wherein the guide (10) comprise at least one guide slot (141, Fig. 4) defining a first rectilinear segment (141-1, Fig. 4) parallel to the damping direction and a second segment (141-3, Fig. 4) inclined with respect to the first rectilinear segment (141,1).
In regard to claim 4, Kim et al ‘443 disclose wherein the abutment member (40) comprises two guide rods (411,412 Fig. 4) configured to engage the at least one guide slot (141), the two guide rods (411,412) being distanced from each other by a distance greater than the length of the second segment (141-3). (Figure 7d shows that the rod 412 is located in the segment 141-3, rod 411 is outside of the segment 141-3)
In regard to claim 5, Kim et al ‘443 disclose wherein the abutment member (40) comprises a first actuation surface (415, Fig. 4) configured to be engaged by the actuation member (SR) when the abutment member (40) is in the rest position or in the engagement position.
In regard to claim 6, Kim et al ‘443 disclose wherein the abutment member (40) further comprises a second actuation surface (of 416, Fig. 5) parallel to the first actuation surface (415) and configured to be engaged by the actuation member (SR) only when the abutment member (40) is in the engagement position.
In regard to claim 7, Kim et al ‘443 disclose wherein, when the abutment member (40) is in] the engagement position (Fig. 7b), the first actuation surface (415) is perpendicular to the damping direction (left/right).
In regard to claim 8, Kim et al ‘443 disclose a traction return member (30, Fig. 4) located parallel to the damping direction (left/right) and connected to the abutment member (40) so as to exert a traction on abutment member (40) during travel of the abutment member.
In regard to claim 9, Kim et al ‘443 disclose wherein the shock absorber member (20) is positioned downstream of the abutment member (40) in the damping direction.
In regard to claim 10, Kim et al ‘443 disclose wherein the traction return member (30) is positioned downstream of the abutment member (40) with respect to said in the damping direction (left/right).
In regard to claim 13, Kim et al ‘443 discloses a manually operated sliding door comprising; a leaf (DR) inside a frame (shown below), the leaf (DR) configured to be manually displaced between an open position and a closed position; the shock absorber (20) configured to damp the travel of the leaf (DR toward the closed position; the actuation member (40) configured to actuate the shock absorber (20).
PNG
media_image1.png
730
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 15, Kim et al ‘443 disclose wherein the shock absorber (A) is attached to the frame (shown above) and the actuation member (SR) is attached to the leaf (DR).
In regard to claim 20, Kim et al ‘443 disclose wherein the leaf (DR) slides with respect to the frame (shown above).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al KR20220065443 in view of Wu CN109681065.
In regard to claim 11 Kim et al ‘443 fails to specifically disclose wherein the shock absorber is a unidirectional dissipator, preferably of the hydraulic type. Wu ‘065 discloses the damping device (12) is a unidirectional dissipator (one way damping device as stated in the specification) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the shock absorber of Kim et al ‘443 be a unidirectional dissipator as taught by Wu ‘065 as Wu ‘065 teaches it is known to use both a one way or directional damping device based on desired damping effect.
Claims 12,14 and 16- 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al KR20220065443.
In regard to claim 12, Kim et al ‘443 fail to disclose wherein the abutment member and the actuation member are made of metal. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Kim et al ‘443 to make the abutment member and actuation member made of metal for the purpose of increased durability and strength. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regard to claim 14, Kim et al ‘443 fails to specifically disclose wherein the shock absorber (20) is configured to damp only a last part of the travel of the leaf (DR) toward the closed position.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the shock absorber of Kim et al ‘443 to damp only a last part of the travel of the leaf as damping only the last part of travel would allow the door to close quickly but prevent slamming. Such would only require a repositioning of the actuation member or abutment member and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70
In regard to claim 16, Kim et al ‘443 fails to disclose a second shock absorber configured to damp the travel of the leaf toward the open position; and a second actuation member configured to actuate the second shock absorber.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a second shock absorber and second actuation member for the purpose of providing additional damping abilities. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In regard to claims 17-18 , Kim et al ‘443 as modified above disclose wherein the second shock absorber device (as taught in claim 16) is configured to damp only a last part of the travel of the leaf toward the open position and wherein the second shock absorber device is identical to said at least one the shock absorber device (20) and overturned (in order to damp in the opposite direction) with respect thereto.
In regard to claim 19, Kim et al ‘443 wherein the door is a horizontally sliding door. Kim et al ‘443 fail to disclose wherein the door is a vertically sliding door. The Examiner takes Official Notice that vertically sliding doors are old and well known and one having ordianary skill in the at would know a vertically sliding door to be a known alternative to a horizontally sliding door based on a desired installation location or space requirement.
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 JEREMY C RAMSEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3133. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 7:00-3:30.
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.
/JEREMY C RAMSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights