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/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/22/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 6/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden as the dependent combination claims include all of the features of the subcombination claims. This is not found persuasive because restrictions are based on the independent claims. The independent claims (combination I claim 1, subcombination II claim 14, and subcombination III claim 19) meet the standards for distinctness as set forth in the restriction requirement and the burden requirement does not change based on which invention applicant elects, i.e. the subcombination claims require very different searches and either could have been elected.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 door having a stepped edge and door tri having a stepped edge of claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The door having a stepped edge is shown in figures 15A-C, however, the door trim shown in figures 16A-B does not have a stepped edge. The seal of figure 15C does include a stepped edge and is coupled to the door edge, however, it is not reasonable to interpret the seal as the trim as they are disclosed as separate structures (claim 9 trim vs claim 7 seal). 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 line 1 recites “steeped edge” instead of “stepped edge”.
Claim 10 recites “kerf profile” and “kerf seal”. The term “kerf” typically means a cut or groove made by a tool such as a saw. The kerf profile shown in figures 2E and 16D appears to be a more general notch or groove rather than one made by a cutting tool, i.e. the frame in figure 2E appears to be a folded frame of metal. For purposes of examination kerf profile will be read broadly as notched or grooved profile and kerf seal as a seal fitting in such notch or groove.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-3, 12, and 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12331568. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present application claims include a broader version of the patented claims, i.e. the subjected matter of patent claim 1 is spread over application claims 1, 2 or 13, 3, and 12 and the application claims require only at least one seal rather than the two seals of the patent claims.
Claim 4-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12331568 in view of US PG Pub 2017/0087811 to Quinn (hereinafter Quinn). While US 12331568 does not claim the patch of claims 4-6, a patch is shown in Quinn as detailed in the rejection below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide US patent 12331568 with the patch of Quinn because patches provided the known benefit of easy repair of cuts or damage to mesh such as the seal cover.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12331568 in view of CN 108868537 to Liu (hereinafter Liu). While US 12331568 does not claim the stepped seal of claim 7, a stepped seal is shown in Liu as detailed in the rejection below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide US patent 12331568 with the stepped seal of Liu because stepped seals provided the known benefit of multiple sealing lines.
Claims 8-10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12331568 in view of GB 2194579 to Henderson (hereinafter Henderson). While US 12331568 does not claim the stepped edge or trim of claims 8-10, these features are shown in Henderson as detailed in the below rejection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide US patent 12331568 with the stepped edge and trim of Henderson because the stepped edge provided the benefit of improved EMC shielding and the trim provided both the benefit of door edge protection as well as an easy way of forming the mating stepped edges of door and frame.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12331568 in view of US patent 10612293 to Norgaard (hereinafter Norgaard). While US 12331568 does not claim the mitered corner of claim 11, a stepped seal is shown in Norgaard as detailed in the rejection below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide US patent 12331568 with the mitered corner of Norgaard because the mitered corner provided the known benefit of easy formation of a well-shaped corner joint (i.e. miter helps form 90 degree angle) and thereby improved sealing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 4-6 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 4 lines 3 recites “when the one of more seals are cut to length for the door assembly”. Neither claim 1 nor claim 3, from which claim 4 depends, require the seals to be cut. As such, it is unclear if the when clause of claim 4 is required or not, i.e. if the seals are not cut then the when clause does not apply (see also MPEP 2173.05(d)). For purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted broadly as the patch being configured to be operatively coupled to a portion of the core. Examiner notes the claim set is directed to a product and cutting would be a process limitation so if claimed without the when the limitation would most likely be product by process limitations (see MPEP 2113).
Dependent claims are rejected as depending form a rejected claim.
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) 1-3, 8-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henderson.
Regarding claim 1, the door assembly is shown in Henderson in figures 1-3 with
a door frame (with 1,2,4, further taught page 1 lines 66-70) operatively coupled to a door opening;
a door (with 5,6,7) comprising a first face (upper face figure 1), a second face (lower face figure 1), and edges (left and right edges figure 1) between the faces, wherein one edge (right edge figure 1) is operatively coupled to the door frame(1,2,4); and
a seal assembly (28,29,31) comprising one or more seals (28,31 and 29,31) operatively coupled to the door frame or the door.
Regarding claim 2, the one or more seals (28,31 and 29,31) provide EMC shielding in Henderson.
Regarding claim 3, the one or more seals (28,31 and 29,31) comprise a core (28,29) and a cover (31) at least partially surrounding the core in Henderson.
Regarding claim 8, the door frame (with 1,2,4) comprises a stepped edge (on 1 and 2) and the door (with 5,6,7) comprises a stepped edge (on 5 and 6) in Henderson.
Regarding claim 9, the door (with 5,6,7) comprises the stepped edge (on 5 and 6) and the stepped edge is formed through coupling a door trim (5 and 6) having the stepped edge to the door in Henderson.
Regarding claim 10, the steeped edge (on 1, 2, 5, and 6) comprise a first kerf profile (30) and a second kerf profile (30), and wherein the one or more seals (28,31 and 29,31) comprise at least a first kerf seal (28,31) and a second kerf seal (29,31) in Henderson.
Regarding claim 13, the one or more seals (28,31 and 29,31) are EMC seals in Henderson.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu.
Regarding claim 1, the door assembly is shown in Liu in figures 1-12 with
a door frame (7) operatively coupled to a door opening;
a door (16) comprising a first face (upper face figure 1), a second face (lower face figure 1), and edges (only right edge shown figure 1) between the faces, wherein one edge (right edge figure 1) is operatively coupled to the door frame (7); and
a seal assembly (6) comprising one or more seals (6) operatively coupled to the door frame.
Regarding claim 7, the one or more seal (6) is a stepped seal having one or more steps and is configured to be operatively coupled to the door frame (7) in Liu.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Quinn.
Regarding claim 4, Henderson does not teach a patch.
A patch is shown in Quinn in figures 1A-2 and 4 where patch (100) is applied to an area (204) of mesh (202). When provided to Henderson, having a seal with core (28 or 29) and a cover (31) of conductive braid, the patch would perform the same patching function for holes/damage in the braid as in the mesh (i.e. braid and mesh are similar woven structures) and as such the patch would operatively couple to the core, at least via the cover.
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 door assembly of Henderson with the patch of Quinn because patches provided the known benefit of easy repair of cuts or damage to mesh or woven structures such as the seal cover.
Regarding claim 5, the patch (100) includes adhesive (see figure 4) in Quinn.
Regarding claim 6, the patch (100) is cut on demand (see figure 4) in Quinn.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Norgaard.
Regarding claim 11, the one or more seals (28,31 and 29-31) are provided on all four edges in Henderson, however, Henderson is silent as to the corner arrangement between seals on adjacent edges.
Mitered corners are shown in Norgaard in figures 1-12 where seal (58) has mitered corner (further taught in column 12 lines 47-52).
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 door assembly of Henderson with the mitered corner of Norgaard because the mitered corner provided the known benefit of easy formation of a well-shaped corner joint (i.e. miter helps form 90 degree angle) and thereby improved sealing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection is overcome and the claim is rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 111550165 to Cai (hereinafter Cai) teaches a seal (7) with core and mesh cover that can be cut to size.
FR 2677407 to Takashi (hereinafter Takashi) teaches a seal (1) with mating ends having notches (3) engaging protrusions (2) (i.e. the empty space around the protrusion 2 forms a notch for receiving notch 3). Examiner notes the seal in Takashi is for the piston of an internal combustion engine and thus may not be applicable in combination with a door assembly such as that in Henderson above.
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
Prosecution Insights