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 .
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s election filed on 3/23/26 and amendment on 4/7/26.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 4, figs 14-23, in the reply filed on 3/23/26 is acknowledged. Applicant recites that claim 11 and new claims 12-20 reads on the elected species.
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 solenoid as claimed in claims 12-14, see 112 rejections below, 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
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the terms “means” and “are disclosed”. 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 specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
Correctly describe the invention as shown in fig 14 (this is in view of the 112 1st paragraph below).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 11 requires the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
114
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 12-14 requires a solenoid.
At the instant, it is unclear what the invention is claimed. Here is the elected invention:
PNG
media_image2.png
551
793
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Now, here is what is disclosed and claimed:
PNG
media_image3.png
337
731
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As shown, what is disclosed and what is illustrated are not the same. The elected species does not have an actuator, which is described as a solenoid. As shown in the drawings, the doorstop comprises a pin 434, spring bias by 132 to position the arm in two different positions with respect to the base.
Furthermore, giving the benefit of doubt that in fact that is a solenoid, it is unclear from the specification how is operated, since there is no controller, power supplier, etc. described. Furthermore, there is no illustration of how this “solenoid” receives power from. Paragraph 131 just mentions that the user will “activate” the actuator subassembly, nothing else.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, a broad interpretation will be given. Correction is required.
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 11-20 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.
Claim 11 requires that the arm assembly is attachable to the wall. At the instant, the limitation is indefinite since the arm assembly is attached to the base, not the wall. Correction is required.
Claim 11 further requires an actuator subassembly. At the instant, it is unclear how element 430 is configured to actuate something, or as claimed.
PNG
media_image4.png
811
1407
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As seen above, when 434 is moved upwardly, that will not cause the arm member to pivot; it just disengages element 434 from the flange.
Furthermore, there is no disclosure of how the actuator subassembly will pivot the arm member.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, a broad interpretation will be given (see above, 112 1st paragraph section). Correction is required.
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) 11, 15, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 1,554,828 to Reinhold in view of US Pat No 7,350,836 to Simpson and US Pat No 2,809,061 to Beyer.
PNG
media_image5.png
708
1509
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Reinhold discloses a doorstop assembly for a swingable entranceway door that has an upper edge bordered by a header of a doorframe (3) mounted in a wall.
The doorstop assembly comprises a base (4); an arm assembly attachable to the base and including an arm member (10) having opposed first and second ends; and means for allowing movement of the arm assembly.
PNG
media_image6.png
334
657
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Wherein the arm assembly is capable of moving between an inactive position, in which the arm assembly is located proximate the wall and out of the contact with the door, whether it is closed or being swung open; and an active position, in which the arm assembly is remote from the wall and oriented to arrest the movement of the door as it is being swung open, thereby preventing the door from being fully opened.
The means includes one component of a hinge (27) positioned on the first arm end, another cooperating component of a hinge positioned on the base and a pin (5), both of the hinge components interdigitating to define a cylindrical space configured to receive the pin therethrough.
An “actuator” subassembly (11, 12) positioned proximate the first arm end and configured to adjust the arm member between its active position and its inactive position.
The arm assembly is configured to be pivotable horizontally from its inactive position to its active position.
First, Reinhold fails to disclose that the base is configured to be secured to the wall at a location above and proximate the header of the doorframe. Reinhold discloses that the base is secured on the header of the doorframe (3).
PNG
media_image7.png
569
734
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Simpson teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a base (16) of a doorstop secured to a wall (13) at a location above and proximate the header of the doorframe (12).
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 base described by Reinhold mounted to the wall above the header of the doorframe, as taught by Simpson, in order to not damage the doorframe. At the instant, the location, in or away from the doorframe is just a design consideration within the art that will not affect the function of the doorstop.
Second, Reinhold fails to disclose that the doorstop further comprises a piston subassembly positioned proximate said second arm end and including a housing and a piston that extends from within the housing; and a door dock having a first portion configured to be secured to the door and a second portion configured to receive a portion of the piston therethrough when the arm member is in its inactive position.
Reinhold teaches the opposite, a piston subassembly that includes a housing (20) and a piston (16) on the door and a door dock (15) at the arm 2nd end.
PNG
media_image8.png
642
1117
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Beyer teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a doorstop (10) that comprises an arm member with a detent (17) that is configured to be received into a recess (16) on a door dock (11).
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 piston subassembly/door dock described by Reinhold positioned on the arm and the door respectively, as taught by Beyer, since the reversal of components in a prior art reference, where there is no disclosed significance to such reversal, is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
As to claim 15, Beyer teaches that the door dock (11) is L-shaped such that a first portion of the door dock is a vertical component and a second portion of the door dock is a horizontal component.
As to claim 16, Reinhold, as modified by Beyer, teaches that the horizontal component includes at least one aperture formed therein and configured to receive a portion of the piston therethrough.
As to claim 18, Reinhold discloses an aperture that is a longitudinal slot (15) that interact with the piston.
As to claim 19, Beyer teaches that the vertical component is configured to be secured to the door, and that includes a plurality of openings configured to receive fastening members therethrough to thereby secure the door dock.
As to claim 20, Reinhold discloses that the base (4) includes a plurality of openings configured to receive fastening members therethrough to thereby secure the base to the wall.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 1,554,828 to Reinhold in view of US Pat No 7,350,836 to Simpson, US Pat No 2,809,061 to Beyer and further in view of US Pat No 8,562,035 to Burdenko et al (Burdenko).
As to claim 12, Reinhold, as modified by Simpson and Beyer, fails to disclose that the actuator subassembly includes an electromechanical solenoid having an inductive coil and an armature partially housed within said coil, said armature having an upper end and a lower end.
Reinhold discloses a manually operating subassembly (24) to move a pin (12). Simpson teaches a linear actuator (28) is used to actuate a member (29) of the doorstop.
PNG
media_image9.png
651
772
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Burdenko teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a solenoid (104) to move up and down an armature (106) from engagement and disengagement of an aperture (210).
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 subassembly described by Reinhold, as modified by Simpson and Beyer, as one comprising a solenoid, as taught by Burdenko, in order to automatically move the armature so as to adjust the position of the arm member with respect to the door.
Applicant is reminded that it has been that providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 1,554,828 to Reinhold in view of US Pat No 7,350,836 to Simpson, US Pat No 2,809,061 to Beyer, US Pat No 8,562,035 to Burdenko et al (Burdenko) and further in view of US Pat No 5,784,968 to MacDonnell.
As to claim 13, Reinhold, as modified by Simpson, Burdenko and Beyer, fails to disclose that the actuator subassembly further includes a bracket securing the electromechanical solenoid to the first end of the arm member.
PNG
media_image10.png
724
788
media_image10.png
Greyscale
As shown above, Reinhold discloses the opposite, that the armature (12) is secured to the base to engage a flange on the arm member.
PNG
media_image11.png
385
834
media_image11.png
Greyscale
MacDonnell teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a stop member (20) having an armature (47) mounted to an arm member (38) to interact with openings on a base (22).
PNG
media_image12.png
378
733
media_image12.png
Greyscale
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 actuator subassembly, described by Reinhold, as modified by Simpson, Burdenko and Beyer, mounted to the arm member, as taught by MacDonnell, since the reversal of components in a prior art reference, where there is no disclosed significance to such reversal, is a design consideration within the skill of the art (as seen above).
As to claim 14, Reinhold discloses that the actuator subassembly further includes a substantially semicircular flange (26) extending between the base and the first end of the arm member. The flange including a first aperture (11) formed therein and configured to
receive lower end of the armature when the arm assembly is in its inactive position, and a second aperture (another 11) formed therein and configured to receive the lower end of the armature when the arm assembly is in its active position.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 1,554,828 to Reinhold in view of US Pat No 7,350,836 to Simpson, US Pat No 2,809,061 to Beyer and further in view of US Pat No 7,731,313 to Chen.
Reinhold, as modified by Simpson and Beyer, fails to disclose that the at least one aperture on the door dock includes a first aperture proximate the vertical component and a second aperture distal the vertical component.
PNG
media_image13.png
580
915
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Chen teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a dock (11) that comprises apertures (15) that are configured to receive a detent (25), wherein one aperture is closer than the other to a point of view.
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 dock described by Reinhold, as modified by Simpson and Beyer, with multiple apertures, as taught by Chen, in order to define and secure the piston in defined positions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/Carlos Lugo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675
May 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights