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 .
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 invention as claimed in claim 1, the structure that moves the locking catches and detect as claimed in claims 2 and 3, the notches, the locked and unlocked positions, and the flanges moving toward each other, as claimed in claim 3, and the motors for the hinge, as claimed in claim 6, see 112 2nd paragraph rejection 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 term “means”. 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).
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 1-15 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 1 requires the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
234
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
At the instant, it is unclear what is claimed as the invention.
Here is the invention as illustrated and claimed:
PNG
media_image2.png
883
1781
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As claimed, the claim requires that the securing means is used to secure and maintain a 2nd flange of the 2nd enclosed space pressed against the first flange of the first space. The claim further requires that the securing means comprises locking catches that project from the 1st flange, thus locking the 2nd flange.
First, it is unclear how this is possible since, as shown above, there is a wall between the 2 flanges. The 2 flanges are just secured by screws.
Second, giving the benefit of doubt to the applicant that somehow there is an opening on the wall, then how the 2nd flange interacts with the locking catches 8 and the projections 10?
PNG
media_image3.png
708
1428
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As seen above, the only way that is possible is that, as shown above, the 2nd flange has a structure that extends through the “opening” and that then interact with the locking catch 8. However, this is just an assumption.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, the claims will be examined as mentioned above.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 9,314,787 to Porret in view of US Pat Application Publication No 20080018117 to Yeremian and US Pat No 1,903,309 to Kelly.
PNG
media_image4.png
766
1363
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Porret discloses a door arrangement of a 1st enclosed space allowing a sealed connection between the 1st enclosed space and a 2nd enclosed space.
The arrangement comprises a 1st flange (3, 5) arranged to define a passage opening in the 1st enclosed space, which defines an opening plane and a passage axis perpendicular to the opening plane; a 1st door (7, 8) hingedly mounted on the 1st flange so as to pass between a closed position, in which the door closes the passage opening and an opening position; and securing means (12, 49) for securing and maintaining a 2nd flange (6) of the 2nd enclosed space mounted against the 1st flange.
However, Porret fails to disclose that the securing means comprises locking catches movable between an unlocked position and a locked position engaging a notch. Porret discloses the use of a pin/slot to engage the 1st and the 2nd flanges without rotational movement of the flanges.
PNG
media_image5.png
484
862
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yeremian teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a catch (24) on a flange (15) that in a locked position, it will rotate to be received within a notch on a door (18, 32).
PNG
media_image6.png
519
776
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kelly teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a catch (61) engaged to a notch (63), so as to create a press fit engagement between a 1st member and a 2nd member (doors and frame).
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 securing means described by Porret so as to have the catch received in a notch on the door, as taught by Yeremian and Kelly, in order to create a press-fit engagement between the two flanges.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 9,314,787 to Porret in view of US Pat Application Publication No 20080018117 to Yeremian, US Pat No 1,903,309 to Kelly and further in view of WO 2011031185 to Zamesov et al (Zamesov).
Porret, as modified by Yeremian and Kelly, fails to disclose the use of a micromotor to drive each locking catch. The combination discloses the use of a manual actuator.
PNG
media_image7.png
735
1111
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Zamesov teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an actuator to drive a locking catch (2) as a micromotor (6).
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 described by Porret, as modified by Yeremian and Kelly, as a micromotor, as taught by Zamesov, in order to automatically operate the locking catches.
Applicant is reminded 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 9,314,787 to Porret in view of US Pat Application Publication No 20080018117 to Yeremian, US Pat No 1,903,309 to Kelly, WO 2011031185 to Zamesov et al (Zamesov) and further in view of US Pat No 7,735,480 to Larsen et al (Larsen).
Porret, as modified by Yeremian, Kelly and Zamesov, fails to disclose that the micromotors are associated with means for detecting the presence of the door.
PNG
media_image8.png
579
740
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Larsen teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a door arrangement with means for detecting the presence of a door (sensors 77, 78) that are associated with a motor (114) that operate latch catches (118, 119).
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 arrangement described by Porret, as modified by Yeremian, Kelly and Zamesov, with means to detect the presence of the door, as taught by Larsen, in order to detect the position of the door and turn off the motor.
Claim(s) 4, 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 9,314,787 to Porret in view of US Pat Application Publication No 20080018117 to Yeremian, US Pat No 1,903,309 to Kelly and further in view of US Pat No 7,779,510 to Hoffman.
As to claim 4, Porret, as modified by Yeremian and Kelly, fails to disclose that the door is fixed to the flange by means of a double-jointed link mechanism. Porret discloses a single joint.
PNG
media_image9.png
639
1359
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Hoffman teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a door arrangement with a double-jointed link mechanism (201) to fix a door (53) that comprises a first joint (209) arranged to allow rotational movement about an axis perpendicular to the passage axis of at most 30 degrees relative to the plane of the passage opening and a second joint (274, 291) arranged to allow rotational movement about an axis parallel to the passage axis.
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 arrangement described by Porret, as modified by Yeremian and Kelly, with a double-jointed link mechanism, as taught by Hoffman, in order to provide the door to move in other angular directions.
As to claim 5, Hoffman teaches that the second joint is arranged to allow a rotational movement, of up to 180 degrees, relative to the plane of the passage opening.
As to claim 13, Hoffman teaches that the double-jointed link mechanism is configured to be power operated (by a linear actuator, col 9 lines 27-31). Zamesov teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an actuator to drive a member (20 that is a micromotor (6).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9, 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 9,314,787 to Porret in view of US Pat Application Publication No 20080018117 to Yeremian, US Pat No 1,903,309 to Kelly, US Pat No 7,779,510 to Hoffman, and further in view of WO 2011031185 to Zamesov et al (Zamesov).
As to claim 6, Porret, as modified by Yeremian, Kelly and Hoffman, teaches that the double-jointed link mechanism is configured to be power operated (by a linear actuator, Hoffman col 9 lines 27-31).
However, the combination fails to disclose the use of a micromotor.
Zamesov teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an actuator to drive a member (20 that is a micromotor (6).
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 described by Porret, as modified by Yeremian, Kelly and Hoffman, as a micromotor, as taught by Zamesov, in order to select the best powered operator for the movement of the hinge.
As to claim 7, Porret, as modified by Yeremian, Kelly, Zamesov and Hoffman, teaches that the door is fixed to the flange by means of a double-jointed link mechanism comprising a first joint arranged to allow rotational movement about an axis perpendicular to the passage axis of at most 30 degrees relative to the plane of the passage opening and a second joint arranged to allow rotational movement about an axis parallel to the passage axis.
As to claim 9, Hoffman teaches that the second joint is arranged to allow a rotational movement, of up to 180 degrees, relative to the plane of the passage opening.
As to claims 11 and 14, Hoffman teaches that the double-jointed link mechanism is configured to be power operated (by a linear actuator, col 9 lines 27-31). Zamesov teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an actuator to drive a member (20 that is a micromotor (6).
Claim(s) 8, 10, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 9,314,787 to Porret in view of US Pat Application Publication No 20080018117 to Yeremian, US Pat No 1,903,309 to Kelly, WO 2011031185 to Zamesov et al (Zamesov), US Pat No 7,735,480 to Larsen et al (Larsen) and further in view of US Pat No 7,779,510 to Hoffman.
As to claim 8, Porret, as modified by Yeremian, Kelly, Zamesov and Larsen, fails to disclose that the door is fixed to the flange by means of a double-jointed link mechanism. Reynie discloses a single joint (E).
Hoffman teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a door arrangement with a double-jointed link mechanism (201) to fix a door (53) that comprises a first joint (209) arranged to allow rotational movement about an axis perpendicular to the passage axis of at most 30 degrees relative to the plane of the passage opening and a second joint (274, 291) arranged to allow rotational movement about an axis parallel to the passage axis.
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 arrangement described by Porret, as modified by Yeremian, Kelly, Zamesov and Larsen, with a double-jointed link mechanism, as taught by Hoffman, in order to provide the door to move in other angular directions.
As to claim 10, Hoffman teaches that the second joint is arranged to allow a rotational movement, of up to 180 degrees, relative to the plane of the passage opening.
As to claims 12 and 15, Hoffman teaches that the double-jointed link mechanism is configured to be power operated (by a linear actuator, col 9 lines 27-31). Zamesov teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an actuator to drive a member (20 that is a micromotor (6).
Conclusion
This is a continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 17/787468. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application.
At the instant, the current set of claims is identical to the set of claims previously presented by the applicant on 10/9/24 in the parent case 17787468 and that were already examined and an action was been made on the record on 12/30/24.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights