DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to the claims filed on July 8, 2025.
Status of claims: claim 10 is withdrawn; claims 1-9 and 11-18 are hereby examined below.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 .
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
This application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The species are as follows:
Species I – FIGS. 3’-3””, 5b, 6, 7’-7”, 7a, 8a and 8b
Species II – FIGS. 9’, 9”, 9a, 10a and 10b
Species III – FIGS. 11’, 11”, 11a, 12a and 12b
Species IV – FIGS. 13, 13a and 14
Species V – FIGS. 15’, 15”, 15a and 16a
FIGS. 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 4, 17, 17a, 18 and 19 appear generic.
Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single species to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The reply must also identify the claims readable on the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered non-responsive unless accompanied by an election.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim. Currently, the following claim(s) are generic: at least claim 1 appears generic.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Species I-V lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a retaining and lifting member, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of US 3810330, as noted in the International search report for PCT/IB2024/051369.
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Fainberg on June 8, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species I, reading on claims 1-9 and 11-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed October 6, 2025 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 11 – “at least one pair of wheels hinged to the support body” is awkward since it appears the applicant is not using “hinged” for its customary meaning. Perhaps applicant should replaced “hinged” with something along the lines of “rotatable relative.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3810330 to Daggy.
Daggy discloses a movable panel system comprising:
a lower guide 110 extending along a guide axis, suitable for resting on a ground plane, comprising a pair of rails 114,114, mutually parallel and transversely spaced, wherein each rail of the pair of rails comprises a shank and a head protruding transversally from the shank; (see annotated figures below and FIGS. 9 and 10)
at least one panel 10,11, slidingly supported on the lower guide and comprising a lower edge; (see FIGS. 1, 2, 9) and
sliding and rotation means comprising:
a carriage group, engaged with the lower edge, comprising:
a support body 152; (see figures below)
at least one pair of wheels 154,155 hinged to the support body, each wheel of the at least one pair of wheels being slidingly engageable with a respective rail of the pair of rails; (see definition of hinge below)
PNG
media_image1.png
242
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
hinge: Meaning and Definition of | Infoplease
a retaining and lifting device 156 engaged with the support body and adapted to be positioned at least partially in a space between the pair of rails underneath the respective heads; (see annotated figures below) and
a base 160 fixed to the lower guide and extending transversely to the guide axis; (see FIGS. 9 and 16)
wherein the at least one panel is configurable along the guide axis in:
a sliding configuration, in which the wheels slidingly engage the rails; and
[AltContent: textbox (Flattened head region)]an end configuration, in which the retaining and lifting device engages the base so that at least one wheel of the at least one pair of wheels is disengaged from the respective rail allowing a movement about a vertical axis of the at least one panel. (see FIGS. 12 and 16) (claim 1)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Rotation window)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (base)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (head)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (shank)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
312
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Daggy further discloses wherein the lower guide further comprises a rotation window in which the base is positioned, and wherein the rotation window transversely interrupts one rail of the pair of rails. (see figures above and FIG. 16) (claim 3)
Daggy further discloses wherein, transversely at the rotation window, one rail of the pair of rails comprises a flattened head region. (see annotated figures above) (claim 4)
Daggy further discloses wherein the retaining and lifting device comprises a retaining and lifting member protruding from the support body by extending vertically and transversely. (see figures above) (claim 7)
Daggy further discloses wherein the retaining and lifting device further comprises adjustment members (“threaded collar,” see col. 7) housed in the support body and operable to adjust a vertical position of the retaining and lifting member. (claim 8)
Daggy further discloses wherein the sliding and rotation means further comprise a load- bearing carriage group 120 engaged with the lower edge, wherein the load-bearing carriage group comprises an element 122 adapted to support axial loads and the at least one panel when rotating and sliding on the lower guide. (see FIG. 10) (claim 13)
Daggy further discloses wherein, in the end configuration, the at least one panel is rotatable to a plurality of angular positions in which the retaining and lifting device is disengaged from the base and the at least one panel is supported to be cantilevered on the lower guide by the load-bearing carriage group. (see FIGS. 10 and 12) (claim 14)
Daggy further discloses a plurality of panels 10,11, wherein the sliding and rotation means comprise a carriage group for each panel. (see FIGS.1, 9 and 10) (claim 15)
Daggy further discloses wherein, in the end configuration, the retaining and lifting device engages the base so that both wheels are disengaged from the respective rail allowing the movement about the vertical axis of the at least one panel. (see FIGS. 12 and 16) (claim 17)
Daggy further discloses wherein the retaining and lifting member comprises an inclined plane. (see FIG. 12) (claim 18)
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 (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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daggy, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US 8756865 to Nicholson et al. (hereinafter “Nicholson”).
Daggy, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the base comprises an inclined surface extending transversely from the guide axis, engageable by the retaining and lifting device moving the at least one panel about the vertical axis.
Nicholson teaches of a base 50 comprises an inclined surface (see at least FIG. 8) extending transversely from the guide axis, engageable by the retaining and lifting device 44 moving the at least one panel about the vertical axis.
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 modify the Daggy base with an inclined surface as disclosed in Nicholson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to assist with guiding the retaining and lifting device, as well as the at least one panel, with movement about a vertical axis. (claim 2)
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daggy, as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, in further view of US 20210244183 to Hoffman et al. (hereinafter “Hoffman”).
Daggy, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the wheels comprise a concave surface in which the head of the respective rail is housed.
Hoffman teaches of a wheel with a concave surface on which a head of a respective rail is housed. (see FGIS. 3b and 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 modify the Daggy wheels with concave surfaces as taught in Hoffman with a reasonable expectation of success in order to further secure the Daggy wheels on the rails as well as since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. (claim 5)
Daggy, as applied above, further discloses wherein the wheels comprise a concave surface in which the head of the respective rail is housed, and wherein the wheel of the at least one pair of wheels sliding on the rail with the flattened head region comprises a rounded wheel edge. (see FIG. 4 of Hoffman, note the edge of the wheel near number 6 is a rounded wheel edge.) (claim 6)
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daggy, as applied to claim 8 above, in further view of Nicholson.
Daggy, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein a retaining and lifting member comprises a rounded portion adapted to slide on a base.
Nicholson teaches of a retaining and lifting member 44 comprises a rounded portion adapted to slide on a base 50. (see at least FIG. 8)
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 modify the Daggy retaining and lifting member with the Nicholson retaining and lifting member with a rounded portion with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate movement of the retaining and lifting member along the base. (claim 11)
Daggy, as applied above, further discloses wherein the rounded portion comprises one of a sliding half-sphere, a sliding ball, or a sliding roller. (see at least FIG. 8B of Nicholson) (claim 12)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daggy, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US 20200217124 to Bernhagen et al. (hereinafter “Bernhagen”)
Daggy, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the least one panel is made of glass.
Bernhagen teaches of at least one panel that is made of glass 2010. (see FIG. 1 and [0088])
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 modify the Daggy panel with a glass insert as taught in Bernhagen with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow users to see through the panel as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. (claim 16)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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 MARCUS MENEZES whose telephone number is (571)272-5225. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30 -4 PST.
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.
/MARCUS MENEZES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights