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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed August 18, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the European Reference 2 771 530 and Italian Reference UB20154669 referred to therein has not been considered.
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 drive set forth on line 2 of claim 18 and the controller on line 2 of claim 19 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “[t]he present invention relates to” on line 1 can be easily implied and therefore should be deleted.
On lines 6-7, “configured for the expandable sliding door, for the non-expandable sliding door leaf” is confusing since it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. How can the expandable sliding door be for the sliding door leaf?
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because each of the figures 2a to 2d requires its own description. See lines 1-2 of paragraph 37.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because recitations such as “original” on line 2 of claim 14 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear what comprises an “original” seal. Does an “original” seal comprise a seal that was provided by the manufacturer during the assembly process of the sliding door insert?
Recitations such as “the stop side” on line 3 of claim 21 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear to which one of the plurality of stop sides set forth above the applicant is referring.
Recitations such as “s” on line 7 of claim 22 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. Did the applicant mean to recite “is”?
Recitations such as “the stop side” on line 3 of claim 24 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear to which one of the plurality of stop sides set forth above the applicant is referring.
Recitations such as “the slot side” on line 6 of claim 24 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear to which one of the plurality of slot sides set forth above the applicant is referring.
Recitations such as “for servicing” on line 6 of claim 24 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear what element of the invention is being serviced.
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 13-19, 21 and 22-24 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.
Recitations such as “configured for the expandable sliding door for the sliding door leaf” on lines 6-7 of claim 13 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. How can the expandable sliding door be for the sliding door leaf?
Recitations such as “the guide panel includes at least one lowerable seal for sealing the top side of the frame” on lines 13-14 of claim 1 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear how the seal 220 can be lowerable when the frame 110 prevents the seal from being lowered.
Recitations such as “at least one liftable seal for sealing against the guide panel” on line 2 of claim 15 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear how the lowerable seal and the liftable seal differ from one another. It appears that the applicant is improperly referring to the same seal 220 as shown in figure 2c.
Recitations such as “for receiving at least a portion of the sliding door leaf” on lines 3-4 of claim 21 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear how any portion of the sliding door leaf 116 can be received in the maintenance pocket 138. See figure 1 which shows the maintenance pocket 138 being disposed behind the stop panel 120 and figure 2a which shows the stop profile 208 preventing the sliding door leaf 116 from being disposed in the maintenance pocket. Also see “the sliding door leaf . . . maintenance pocket” on lines 6-7 of claim 21.
Recitations such as “a sliding door” on line 2 of claim 22 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the expandable sliding door set forth above or is attempting to set forth another sliding door in addition to the one set forth above.
Recitations such as “preferably” on line 4 of claim 22 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Recitations such as “are removed to make a maintenance pocket” on lines 2-3 of claim 24 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. The maintenance pocket 138 is disposed behind the stop panel 130 and the stop profile 208 as shown in figure 2a. How would the removal of the stop panel 120 (fig. 2a) make the maintenance pocket 138 (fig. 1)?
Recitations such as “for receiving at least a portion of the sliding door leaf” on line 4 of claim 24 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear how any portion of the sliding door leaf 116 (fig. 2a) can be received in the maintenance pocket 138. See figure 2a where the stop profile 208 would prevent the sliding door leaf 116 from entering the maintenance pocket 138.
Recitation such as “when the stop panel is installed” on line 7 of claim 24 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear how the stop panel is installed when lines 2-3 of claim 24 set forth the removal of the stop panel.
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 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Triller (US 2378666).
Triller discloses a sliding door cassette for an expandable sliding door, having a sliding door, the sliding door cassette comprising:
a sliding door insert including a sliding door assembly 44 and a panel set 64, 66, 80, 82, 84, 86, wherein a non-expandable sliding door leaf 44 (fig. 6) of the sliding door assembly of the sliding door insert is hooked into a guide rail 18, 20 (fig. 9) of the sliding door cassette, and the panel set of the sliding door insert modifies a frame 4, 6, 8 (fig. 1) of the sliding door cassette for the sliding door leaf 44, wherein a stop panel 80, 82 (fig. 12) of the panel set is arranged on a stop side of the frame and seals a stop side of the sliding door leaf 44, as shown in figure 12, wherein a guide panel 64, 66 (fig. 9) of the panel set is arranged on a top side of the frame and seals a top side of the sliding door leaf 44, as shown in figure 9, and wherein a slot panel 84, 86 (fig. 11) of the panel set is arranged on a slot side of the frame and seals a slot side of the sliding door leaf 44, as shown in figure 11. Note that the sliding door insert of Triller can be used to modify a sliding door cassette for an expandable sliding door which is all that is required of claim 20.
With respect to claim 21, the stop panel 80, 82 and at least a part 34 (figs. 1 and 12) of the stop side of the frame are removable, wherein the sliding door cassette has a maintenance pocket (labeled below) behind the stop panel 80, 82 and the stop side 34 for receiving at least a portion of the sliding door leaf 44 (note that at least a portion of the sliding door leaf 44 is received by the stop panel 80, 82 as shown in figure 12), and wherein, when the stop panel 80, 82 is installed, components of the sliding door assembly 36 (figs. 1 and 12) hidden in a slot of the sliding door cassette are accessible when the sliding door leaf 44 is at least partially arranged in the maintenance pocket. Note that the slot of the sliding door cassette will be accessible at least when one of the trim strips 74, 76 is removed.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Triller (US 2378666).
Triller discloses a method for retrofitting a sliding door cassette of an expandable sliding door having a sliding door, the method comprising:
providing a sliding door insert including a sliding door assembly 44 and a panel set 64, 66, 80, 82, 84, 86,
wherein a preferably non-expandable sliding door leaf 44 of the sliding door assembly of the sliding door insert is hooked into a guide rail 18, 20 (fig. 9) of the sliding door cassette, wherein a frame 4, 6, 8 (fig. 1) of the sliding door cassette configured for the expandable sliding door is modified using the panel set 64, 66, 80, 82, 84, 86 of the sliding door insert for the sliding door leaf, wherein a stop panel 80, 82 (fig. 12) of the panel set is arranged on a stop side (labeled below) of the frame to seal a stop side of the sliding door leaf 44 as shown in figure 12, wherein a guide panel 64, 66 (fig. 9) of the panel set is arranged on a top side of the frame (labeled below) to seal a top side of the sliding door leaf 44 as shown in figure 9, and wherein a slot panel 84, 86 (fig. 11) of the panel set is arranged on a slot side (labeled below) of the frame to seal a slot side of the sliding door leaf 44 as shown in figure 11.
Note that the sliding door assembly and panel set of Triller is disclosed as being capable of being installed on a sliding door cassette of an expandable sliding door having a sliding door which is all that is required of claim 22.
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.
Claims 13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triller (US 2378666) in view of Myers et al. (US 3098519). Triller discloses a sliding door insert for retrofitting a sliding door cassette of an expandable sliding door with a sliding door, the sliding door insert comprising:
a sliding door assembly, wherein the sliding door assembly includes a non-expandable sliding door leaf 44 (fig. 6) and is designed to be hooked into a guide rail 18, 20 (fig. 9) of the sliding door cassette; and
a panel set 64, 66, 80, 82, 84, 86 designed to modify a frame of the sliding door cassette configured for the expandable sliding door for the sliding door leaf, wherein the panel set comprises a stop panel 80, 82 (fig. 12), a guide panel 64, 66 (fig. 9), and a slot panel 84, 86 (fig. 11), wherein the stop panel 80, 82 is designed to be arranged on a stop side of the frame and to seal a stop side of the sliding door leaf 44, wherein the guide panel 64, 66 is designed to be arranged on a top side of the frame and to seal a top side of the sliding door leaf 44, wherein the slot panel 84, 86 is designed to be arranged on a slot side of the frame and to seal a slot side of the sliding door leaf 44. Note that the sliding door assembly of Triller can be used to modify a sliding door cassette of an expandable sliding door which is all that is required of claim 13.
Triller is silent concerning at least one lowerable seal.
However, Myers et al. discloses at least one lowerable seal 27 for sealing a top side of a frame 32.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Triller with at least one lowerable seal, as taught by Myers et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to acoustically seal the sliding door leaf. See lines 46-49 of column 2.
With respect to claim 15, the seal 27 of Myers et al. comprises at least one liftable seal 27 for sealing against the guide panel 64, 66 since the seal 27 is lifted when deflated and is capable of sealing against the guide panel 64, 66.
With respect to claim 17, at least the stop panel and/or the slot panel 84, 86 is designed to be attached in original seal receptacles of the frame. Note that the slot panel 84, 86 only need be capable of being attached in original seal receptacles of a frame. Since slot panel 84, 86 is capable of being attached in original seal receptacles of a frame, claim 17 is anticipated by the teachings of Triller.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triller in view of Myers et al. as applied to claims 13, 15 and 17 above, and further in view of SE 1850853. SE 1850853 discloses a slot panel 48 having seal receptacles (not numbered, but shown in figure 3 receiving the seals 40) for original seals 40 of the frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Triller, as modified above, with seals, as taught by SE 1850853, with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent the ingress or egress of air, water and debris between the sliding door leaf 44 and the slot panel.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triller in view of Myers et al. as applied to claims 13, 15 and 17 above.
Lio et al. further discloses that the sliding door assembly includes at least one lowerable seal 38 to seal against a floor 39.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Triller, as modified above, with a lowerable seal, as taught by Myers et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to seal the sliding door panel against the floor when the sliding door panel is in the closed position.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triller in view of Myers et al. as applied to claims 13, 15 and 17 above, and further in view of Bonar (US 6289643). Bonar discloses a sliding door assembly including a drive 65 (fig. 10) for a sliding door leaf 32 (fig. 4), and wherein the drive 65 is arranged on the slot side of the sliding door leaf 32 (see figure 4 which shows at least part of the drive 65 disposed on the slot side of the sliding door leaf 32) and is designed to be arranged within a slot of the sliding door cassette.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Triller, as modified above, with a drive, as taught by Bonar, with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a user to automatically open and close the sliding door leaf.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triller in view of Myers et al. as applied to claims 13, 15 and 17 above, and further in view of Bonar (US 6289643). Bonar discloses a sliding door assembly including a drive 65 (fig. 10) and a controller 93 (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Triller, as modified above, with a drive and a controller, as taught by Bonar, with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a user to automatically open and close the sliding door leaf.
Additionally, Triller, as modified above is silent concerning the controller being arranged on the slot side of the sliding door leaf.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to, through an obvious matter of engineering design choice as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, position the controller 93 of Triller, as modified above, on the slot side of the sliding door leaf to enable a user to remotely control the operation of the sliding door leaf for security reasons. Note that being positioned on the slot side of the sliding door leaf has been interpreted to mean that the controller is on the right hand side of the sliding door leaf 32 as shown in figure 4. Thus, the controller can be positioned a significant distance away from the sliding door leaf 32 and still be utilized to operate the sliding door leaf from a safe distance away from the sliding door leaf.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triller as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of SE 1850853. SE 1850853 discloses a slot panel 48 having seal receptacles (not numbered, but shown in figure 3 receiving the seals 40) for original seals 40 of the frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Triller, as modified above, with seals, as taught by SE 1850853, with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent the ingress or egress of air, water and debris between the sliding door leaf 44 and the slot panel.
Note that the provision of the seals of SE 1850853 to Triller would require the original seals 40 of the frame to be removed and arranged at least on the stop panel, the slot panel 84, 86 and/or the sliding door leaf at least for cleaning and maintenance of the original seals 40.
Note that the patentability of claim 24 cannot be ascertained at this time due to the clarity issues in claim 24 as set forth above.
PNG
media_image1.png
1658
1120
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1656
1114
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights