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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Reference characters (preferably numerals per 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(1)) not words should be used to identify the structures in the figures. The present figures include a mix of reference numerals and combinations of reference numerals and words, the words should be removed.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "221A", “221B”, “521”, and "721" have all been used to designate the lockable hinge assembly. The hinges all appear to be the same hinge, i.e. hinges 521 and 721 are identical and just include the details of more generically shown hinges 221A and 2221B. The same structures should have the same reference numerals in all figures where they are shown as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(4). Only parts that are different, e.g. leaf 551/751 vs leaf 851 vs leaf 951, should have different numerals.
Examiner notes this objection applies to all reference numerals, not just those for the gate assembly, as every part that is identified in more than one figures, for example panels 131, 531, 731, etc., includes a different reference numeral for each figure.
Per 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(1) reference characters should not be used in association with brackets. Brackets should be removed from the figures. The proper way to indicate a structure or section generally, such as door 249 in figure 2, is with an arrow per 37 C.F.R. 1.84(r)(1).
The use of reference numeral 249 for the entire door (i.e. all four panels 131) in figure 2 and reference numeral 449 for only a partial door (i.e. upper two panels) in figure 4 is confusing as both reference numerals end in the same two digits (49) and for the rest of the reference numerals the same ending digits indicate the same structure (e.g. panels 131, 531, 731, etc.). As it would appear that the partial door is a subcomponent of the full door examiner suggests the partial door be given a different ending such as 90 so the two parts of the door (fence 495 and partial door 490) would have similar ends.
The cross-section line should not have its own reference numeral (1115 in figure 11), cross-section lines are typically indicated with a single letter or Roman numeral and then referenced to in the specification (e.g. figure 12 is a view along cross-section XII in figure 11). Also figure 12 shows structures that are not shown at the line in figure 11 from which the cross-section is purported to be taken.
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The method described in paragraphs [0032]-[0033] includes numerous reference numerals not in the figures, e.g. 121B, 124, and 125. Reference numerals should be changed to reflect the consistent reference numerals noted in the above drawing objections.
The use of quotation marks outside a list of words being defined in scope as in paragraphs [0021]-[0023] is unnecessary and confusing, for example “upper” panel 5531 in paragraph [0034]. The quotations imply something other than upper is meant and the upper panel is simply the uppermost of two panels 531A and 531B. This confusion is exacerbated by 531B also being referred to as an “upper” panel in paragraph [0034], which appears to be a typo for lower panel. Quotation marks outside paragraphs [0021]-[0023] should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6, 7, 9-11, 14, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “said pair being configured so that a closing partial door will break a beam”. The closing partial door is not what breaks the beam, if the closing door broke the beam the door could never close as every time the partial door closed the beam would be broken and the panel would stop. From the disclosure it appears that an obstacle breaks the beam when the partial door is open and the claim will be interpreted similarly.
Claim 1 only recites track in relation to “along-track movement”, which does not positively require a track, just a movement.
Claims 6 and 7 recited “said door track”. This limitation does not have antecedent in claim 1 as noted above.
Examiner notes this antecedent issue causes additional confusion as claims 10 and 17, also depending from claim 1, recite “a track”. It appears that all four recitations should be “a track”.
Claim 6 also recites “said first wheel support axle”. The wheel axle was not previously recited, as such the proper antecedent basis is “a first wheel support axle”.
Claim 7 also recites “at least one lower door panel”. Claim 1 previously recited “a lower door panel”. It is unclear if this is the same door panel or not. From the antecedent it is not the same panel (i.e. there is a panel and separately at least one panel), however, from the disclosure it appears that may be the same panel (i.e. brace 210 is on the same panel 131C as lockable hinge 221B). If applicant wishes for the option of the brace being on either the same panel or a different panel examiner suggests something like “the panel door comprises a plurality of lower panels including the lower panel and the system comprising a brace configured to restrict movement of at least one lower door panel of the plurality of lower door panels”. Examiner notes the proper antecedent for later at least one is “said at least one lower door panel”, not “at least one said lower door panel” as in claim 7.
Claim 9 recites “said garage door opener”. There is no previously recited garage door opener.
A similar issue occurs in claim 14.
Claim 11 recites “an upper door panel”. The upper door panel was previously recited in claim 1, as such the proper antecedent is “the upper door panel”. The same issue occurs with “a lower door panel” and a similar issue with the second recitation of “a handle or other actuator”.
The above is a non-comprehensive list of issues. Given the number of antecedent issue applicant is advised to review all claims for issues similar to those above.
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.
Claim 2, 3, 11, and 15-17 is 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.
Claim 2 recites “system of claim 1 configured to replace two or more conventional hinges of an existing door installation as a retrofit kit that also includes”. It is unclear what the configured to clause is supposed to modify. Is the clause clarifying that the reversibly configuring of claim 1 is done by retrofitting hinges? Is this s a different configured to separate from the configuring of claim 1? As such it is unclear what the scope of the claim is. Also, the portion “a retrofit kit that also includes” is unclear. On its face it appears that only the retrofit kit includes the additional features of the claim and thus it is unclear what the claim is further limiting from claim 1. It would appear that the system also includes the features of claim 2. Applicant should clarify what the clause is modifying and what also includes, for example “system of claim 1 wherein the system is configured to replace two or more conventional hinges of an existing door installation as a retrofit kit, the system also includes”. For purposes of examination claim will be read broadly.
The same issue occurs in claims 3, 15, and 16.
Claim 11 recites “said second component comprises: a first mounting configured to be affixed to an upper door panel; a leaf or other extension supported by said first mounting; and a handle or other actuator of a second mounting affixed to a lower door panel”. Claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, defines the second component as being the component mounted to the lower panel and as such it is unclear how the second component of claim 11 is now mounted to the upper panel. It is also unclear how the second component is mounted to both upper and lower panels in claim 11 when the first component of claim 1 was recited as being the component mounted to the upper panel. Claim 1 appears to be describing the second component as the hinge as a whole, i.e. the “first mounting” is the first component and the “second mounting” is the second component. The second component is only half the hinge, not the whole hinge as described in claim 11. For purposes of examination claim 11 will be read broadly in view of the disclosure as describing the hinge as a whole with the first and second mountings being the first and second components of claim 1.
Claims 15-17 includes similar issues in redefining the kit/system as including upper and lower mountings that appear to be the same as, or at least part of, the first and second components of claim 1
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 10, 15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US patent 11608674 to Fazio (hereinafter Fazio).
Regarding claim 1, the system is shown in Fazio in figures 1A-7B with
first and second (at least two hinges shown figure 2A) lockable (interpreted in view of disclosure as having locked connected state figures 2A and 5A and unlocked separated state figures 2B and 5B) hinges (24) each configured to span adjacent upper (18) and lower (16) door panels of said panel door (12) in lieu of conventional hinges therebetween wherein said first lockable hinge (24) comprises a first component (26) configured to be mounted to said upper door panel (18) and a second component (28) configured to be mounted to said lower door panel (16);
wherein an extension (portion receiving 34 in figure 4A) of said first component (26) mounted to said upper door panel (18) is configured to be locked with (via 34, figure 5a) and unlocked from (figure 5B) said second component (28) mounted to said lower door panel (16); and
wherein a locked state of said first and second lockable hinges (24) allows said upper (18) and lower (16) door panels to undergo along-track (track 56) movement together and an unlocked state (figures 1B and 2B) thereof allows said upper door panel (18) to rise while at least said lower door panel (16) is configured as a stationary divider or containment fence.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in view of the above 112s, the system is retrofit (system for converting a door column 2 lines 8-11), the system also includes a bias unit (figures 7A and 7B, with spring 60) configured to assist a motorized door opener (column 5 lines 46-59) in lifting said upper door panel (18) away from said lower door panel (16) so as to extend an operational longevity of said motorized door opener in Fazio.
Regarding claim 7, the system includes a brace (36) configured to restrict movement of at least one lower door panel (16) in a fully lowered position wherein said brace (36) includes a laterally slidable shaft (38) configured to slide into a corresponding opening in said door track (56) to prevent upward movement of at least said lower door panel (16) in Fazio.
Regarding claim 10, said first component (26) comprises: a solid first mounting (body of 26 in figure 4A) configured to be rigidly affixed to a lower half of said upper door panel (18); a hinge pin (34) supported by said solid first mounting and positioned at a seam between said upper and lower panels; and an in-track wheel axle (for wheel 40) supported by said solid first mounting above said seam wherein said in-track wheel axle is configured to support a corresponding wheel (40) that can roll up or down a track (56) in Fazio.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, the system is retrofit (system for converting a door column 2 lines 8-11), the system also includes an upper mounting (part of first component 26) configured to be affixed to said upper door panel (18) and a lower mounting (part of second component 28) configured to be affixed to said lower door panel (16) in Fazio.
Regarding claim 18, the system is shown in Fazio in figures 1A-7B with
first and second (at least two hinges figure 2) lockable hinges (24) each configured to span adjacent upper (18) and lower (16) door panels of said panel door (12) in lieu of conventional hinges (i.e. to allow conversion of overhead door) therebetween wherein said first lockable hinge (24) comprises a first component (26) configured to be mounted to said upper door panel (18) and a second component (28) configured to be mounted to said lower door panel (16) and wherein an extension (portion receiving 34 figure 4A) of said first component (26) is configured to be locked with and unlocked from (via 34) said second component (28).
Regarding claim 19, at least said lower door panel (16) is configured to remain in a fully lowered position (figure 1B) during an upward movement of said upper door panel (18); wherein said first component (26) is configured to rotatably engage a first wheel support axle (for wheel 40) that engages a first wheel (40) so as to allow said first wheel to roll along a door track (56) while guiding upward movement of said upper door panel (18) when said first and second lockable hinges (24) are in an unlocked state; and wherein a locked state (figure 1A) of said first and second lockable hinges (24) allows said upper (18) and lower (16) door panels to undergo along-track movement together and an unlocked state (figure 1B) thereof allows said upper door panel (18) to rise while at least said lower door panel (16) is configured as a stationary divider or containment fence in Fazio.
Regarding claim 20, the method is shown in Fazio in figures 1A-7B with
configuring first and second lockable hinges (24) each to span adjacent upper (16) and lower (18) door panels of said panel door (12) in lieu of conventional hinges therebetween (converting overhead door) wherein said first lockable hinge (24) comprises a first component (26) configured to be mounted to said upper door panel (18) and a second component (28) configured to be mounted to said lower door panel (16) and wherein an extension (portion receiving 34 figure 4A) of said first component (26) is configured to be locked with and unlocked from (via 34) said second component (28).
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) 4-6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazio.
Regarding claim 4, Fazio shows lower panels (16,14) forming the divider/fence and an opening (figure 1B) above the divider/fence in the area closed by upper panels (18,20).
However, Fazio is silent as to the exact size of the fence and opening.
Although Fazio does not disclose specific size divider/fence (lower half of panel door) and opening (approximately size of upper half of panel door), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to size the panel door to be useful- i.e. too small a panel door would be too small to function in the garage environment noted in Fazio and too large a panel door would be take up too much space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select or at least try the sizes claimed as there are a finite number of sizes such a panel door can usefully be made in.
Regarding claim 5, the lockable hinges (24) are configured to allow axial movement tolerance (with flared portions 30,32 of first component 26 and coordinating tapered portions of second component 28, figures 4A and 4B) to accommodate misalignment between said upper and lower door panels during operation in Fazio.
However, Fazio is silent as to the exact size of the tolerance.
Although Fazio does not disclose specific size tolerance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to size the tolerance to be useful- i.e. too small a tolerance would not provide enough clearance and thus not function to accommodate misalignment and too large a tolerance would allow too much clearance and making locking the hinge components together move difficult due to the excess clearance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select or at least try the sizes claimed as there are a finite number of sizes such a tolerance can usefully be made in.
Regarding claim 6, a first wheel support axle (for wheel 40) is positioned above a top edge of said lower door panel (16) to facilitate guided movement of said upper door panel (18) along a track (56) in Fazio.
However, Fazio is silent as to the how far above the lower panel the axle is.
Although Fazio does not disclose specific spacing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to size the spacing to be useful- i.e. too small a spacing would put the axle too close to the bottom of the first component and not allow room for other structures on the first component and too large a spacing would require excess materials and excess cost to allow for the first component to create such a spacing (i.e. the first component would be unnecessarily long). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select or at least try the sizes claimed as there are a finite number of sizes such a spacing can usefully be made in.
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, the first component (26) is or includes an upper mounting that engages an axle (for 40) for a first wheel (20) having an axis of rotation that is an inter-panel seam so that said first wheel (40) may guide said upper door panel (18) while rolling along a track (56) generally upward relative to and away from said lower door panel (16) in Fazio.
However, Fazio is silent as to the how far above the seam the axle is.
Although Fazio does not disclose specific spacing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to size the spacing to be useful- i.e. too small a spacing would put the axle too close to the bottom of the first component and not allow room for other structures on the first component and too large a spacing would require excess materials and excess cost to allow for the first component to create such a spacing (i.e. the first component would be unnecessarily long). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select or at least try the sizes claimed as there are a finite number of sizes such a spacing can usefully be made in.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazio in view of US patent 9057779 to Pfiffner (hereinafter Pfiffner).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in view of the above 112s, the system is retrofit (system for converting a door column 2 lines 8-11) in Fazio.
However, Fazio is silent as to an obstacle detection system.
An obstacle detection system is shown in Pfiffner in the figure with
a pair of optical components (one of the components 5 and the corresponding reflecting portion of 3b) configured to be installed along the entire opening of the panel door (2), said pair being configured so that an obstacle in the upper region (sensors 5 run the length of the track and detect both obstacle and door in all regions) will break a beam therebetween and thereby stop or reverse direction and thereby protect a child or other animate obstacle (4) from a closing door injury. When provided to Fazio having the separable upper panels (18,20), the upper region at the height of a person would encompass a distance above the divider/fence of at least less than 50 cm (i.e. Pfiffner includes multiple sensors 5 all along the track including in the area of a standing person).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Fazio with the obstacle detection of Pfiffner because obstacle detection provided the known benefit of improved safety and the system of Pfiffner in particular provided improved detection along the movement of the door from closer to the floor to at or above a person for improved safety over just a floor sensor.
Regarding claim 12, the system includes a motorized door opener (column 5 lines 46-59) configured to selectively open and close a partial door (figure 1B partial door open) that includes said upper door panel (18) but not said lower door panel (16) in Fazio.
However, Fazio does not teach obstacle detection.
Obstacle detection is shown in Pfiffner in the figure with a first pair of optical safety components (lowest component 5 and corresponding reflecting portion of 3b) positioned in a height range between a ground height and a lowest seam height, said first pair configured to detect a first beam to signal a safe condition for closing a complete door (2) that includes said upper and lower door panels; and a second pair of optical safety components (second higher component 5 and corresponding reflecting portion of 3b) positioned in a higher range (sensors 5 run all along the track from near the floor to including up to and over the height of a person), said second pair configured to detect a second beam; wherein said motorized door opener (7,8) is operably coupled to a sensor of said second pair and configured to stop or reverse closing of the door as an automatic and conditional response to said second beam encountering an optical obstacle. When provided to Fazio having the separable upper panels (18,20), the upper region at the height of a person would encompass a distance above the divider/fence of at least 10-100cm (i.e. Pfiffner includes multiple sensors 5 all along the track including in the area of a standing person).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Fazio with the obstacle detection of Pfiffner because obstacle detection provided the known benefit of improved safety and the system of Pfiffner in particular provided improved detection along the movement of the door from closer to the floor to at or above a person for improved safety over just a floor sensor.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazio in view of US patent 3021896 to Buono.
Regarding claim 8, the system includes a supplemental bias unit (figures 7A and 7B, with spring 60) configured to assist in lifting multiple panels (18,20) of a partial door wherein said supplemental bias unit includes a spring (60) and a cable (68) wherein said supplemental bias unit is configured to reduce an initial lifting burden on a motorized door opener (column 5 lines 46-59) in Fazio.
However, Fazio does not teach a spool and box arrangement and is silent as to the burden reduction.
Examiner notes the burden reduction percentage is a function of the biasing force and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to size the biasing force to be useful (i.e. too little force won’t assist enough and too much force would provide too my bias and limit normal operation) and at least try the claimed range of 25% reduction as there is a finite range such biasing forces can be made in.
A box and spool is shown in Buono in figures 9-14 where box (60) encases spring (62), spool (58), and cable (57) for facilitating opening a door (47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Fazio with the box and spool of Buono because the enclosed spring biasing system provides a smaller system and the box provided protection for the spring.
Regarding claim 9, the system includes a bias unit (figures 7A and 7B, with spring 60) that includes a spring (60) configured to provide a maximum static load upon a cable (68) that is configured to lift a partial door(18,20) that includes at least said upper door panel (18) wherein said bias unit protects said garage door opener (column 5 lines 46-59) from damage by significantly reducing a tension pulse magnitude upon said garage door opener as said partial door begins to separate from said lower door panel (function of biasing unit) in Fazio.
However, Fazio does not teach a box for the spring.
A box is shown in Buono in figures 9-14 where box (60) encases spring (62) for facilitating opening a door (47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Fazio with the box of Buono because the enclosed spring in the box provides protection for the spring.
Regarding claim 13, the system includes a bias unit (figures 7A and 7B, with spring 60) mounted at least partly between said motorized door opener (column 5 lines 46-59) and a partial door (18,20) that includes said upper door panel (18) but not said lower door panel (16) wherein said bias unit comprises: a cable (68); a spring (60) in Fazio.
However, Fazio does not teach the box, spool, or mounting details of the bias unit.
The bias unit details are shown in Buono in figures 9-14 with a box (6) with the spring (62), a spool (58) for the cable (57); a rotary assembly (figure 10) comprising said spool (58) and part of said box (60), said rotary assembly configured to rotate about a mounting bolt (59); and mounting hardware including said mounting bolt (59) and a nut (figure 10) configured to affix said bias unit to a permanent fixture.
A box and spool is shown in Buono in figures 9-14 where box (60) encases spring (62), spool (58), and cable (57) for facilitating opening a door (47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Fazio with the box, spool, and mounting details of Buono because the enclosed spring biasing system provides a smaller system with easy mounting and the box provided protection for the spring.
Regarding claim 14, the system includes a bias unit )figures 7A and 7B, with spring 60) mounted in a vicinity (figure 7A) of said motorized door opener (column 5 lines 46-59) wherein said bias unit is configured to reduce an initial burden on said motorized door opener when lifting one or more panels of said partial door (18,20) and wherein a spring (60) of said bias unit is configured to become increasingly loaded as a cable (68) biased by said first spring unwinds and as said partial door lowers in Fazio.
However, Fazio does not teach a box for the spring.
A box is shown in Buono in figures 9-14 where box (60) encases spring (62) for facilitating opening a door (47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Fazio with the box of Buono because the enclosed spring in the box provides protection for the spring.
Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazio in view of US PG Pub 2025/0347161 to De La Rosa (hereinafter De La Rosa).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, said lockable hinge comprises: the first component/mounting (26) configured to be affixed to the upper door panel (18) and a handle or other actuator (34) of the second component/mounting (28) affixed to the lower door panel (16) and movable relative to another part of said second mounting (base of 28) wherein movement of a handle or other actuator completes a locking or unlocking operation that modifies said state of said lockable hinge (24) in Fazio.
However, Fazio does not teach vertical rotation of the handle or the leaf.
A vertically rotating handle is shown in De La Rosa in figures 1A-6D where hinge (200) has handle (210) rotates vertically to lock or unlock a leaf (204c) of a first component/mounting (204) from a second component mounting (202). While handle is on the leaf in De La Rosa, it would be design choice to place the handle on the second, fixed component instead of the movable leaf.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Fazio with the leaf and vertically rotting handle of De La Rosa, having the handle on the fixed second component, because the leaf and handle arrangement provided easy to use locking hinge without needing to remove and store parts as with the removable pin of Fazio and because the rearrangement of the handle to the fixed component provides more stability for the handle (see also MPEP 2144.04 VI Section C rearrangement of parts obvious).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, the system is retrofit (system for converting a door column 2 lines 8-11), the system also includes an upper mounting (with first component 26) configured to be affixed to said upper door panel (18) and a lower mounting (with second component 28) configured to be affixed to said lower door panel (16) in Fazio.
However, the hinge does not include a leaf with bends or biasing in Fazio.
A leaf with bends is shown in Se La Rosa in figures 1A-6D where hinge (200) has first component (204) with leaf (204c) having two bends (forming portion 206) wherein the bends accommodate a thickness (of portion 218) of second component (202).
Examiner takes Official Notice that biased hinge flaps were old and well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Fazio with the leaf and vertically rotting handle of De La Rosa, having the known biasing because the leaf arrangement provided easy to use locking hinge without needing to remove and store parts as with the removable pin of Fazio and because the biasing provided the benefit of allowing for further spacing and thereby easier separation in the unlocked state.
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 CATHERINE A KELLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/CATHERINE A KELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
