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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “a door” on line 2 is confusing because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the door set forth above or is attempting to set forth another door in addition to the one set forth above.
On line 7, “transversely” is confusing because it is unclear relative to what element of the invention the drop plate moves transversely.
On line 7, “outwards” is confusing because it appears that the drop plate moves downwards rather than outwards.
On line 8, “the gap to the floor” is confusing because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. Note that the gap has already been defined as being between the bottom of the door and the floor. Therefore, it is confusing to recite “to the floor” since the gap already extends to the floor.
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 Objections
The claims are objected to because recitations such as “laterally configured” on line 4 of claim 15 brings the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. How is the plunger “laterally configured”? How does “laterally configured” differ from merely being configured?
The claims are objected to because “outwards” on line 10 of claim 15 brings the clarity of the claims into question because it appears that the drop plate moves downwards rather than outwards. Also see “outwards” on line 2 of claim 24.
The claims are objected to because “the gap to the floor” on line 10 of claim 15 brings the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. Note that the gap has already been defined as being between the bottom of the door and the floor. Therefore, it is confusing to recite “to the floor” since the gap already extends to the floor.
The claims are objected to because “constrain motion of the slider substantially laterally” on line 3 of claim 18 brings the clarity of the claims into question because it is grammatically awkward and confusing.
The claims are objected to because “pairs” on line 3 of claim 19 brings the clarity of the claims into question because it is grammatically incorrect.
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 15-29 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 “a door” on line 2 of claim 15 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the door set forth above or is attempting to set forth another door in addition to the one set forth above.
Recitations such as “transversely” on line 9 of claim 15 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear relative to what element of the invention the drop plate moves transversely.
Recitations such as “the ramp surfaces” on line 2 of claim 16 render the claims indefinite because is unclear if the applicant is referring to the one or more ramp surfaces set forth above. Note that claim 15 provides for the selection of only one ramp surface. Thus, reciting more than one ramp surface in claim 16 contradicts the selection of one ramp surface in claim 15.
Recitations such as “the first rollers” on line 3 of claim 16 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the one or more first rollers set forth above. Note that claim 15 provides for the selection of only one first roller. Thus, reciting more than one first roller in claim 16 contradicts the selection of one roller in claim 15.
Recitations such as “a door” on line 2 of claim 17 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the door set forth above or is attempting to set forth another door in addition to the one set forth above.
Recitations such as “a pair of second rollers” on line 2 of claim 18 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to a pair of the one or more pairs of second rollers set forth above or is attempting to set forth a pair of second rollers in addition to the one or more pairs of second rollers. Also see “a first pair of second rollers” on line 2 of claim 19 and “a second pairs of second rollers” on line 3 of claim 19.
Recitations such as “a door frame” on line 2 of claim 22 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the door frame set forth above or is attempting to set forth another door frame in addition to the one set forth above.
Recitations such as “extends” on line 2 of claim 23 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear from what element of the invention the plunger extends.
Recitations such as “is not pressed by the drop-plate rises” on line 2 of claim 24 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear how the drop plate is able to rise when it is already in the fully raised position. Note that the drop-plate does not always rise when the plunger is not pressed.
Recitations such as “therethrough” on line 1 of claim 26 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what element of the invention the apertures extend through.
Recitations such as “a door” on line 2 of claim 26 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the door set forth above or is attempting to set forth another door in addition to the one set forth above.
Recitations such as “a door” on line 3 of claim 27 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the door set forth above or is attempting to set forth another door in addition to the one set forth above.
Recitations such as “a door” on line 1 of claim 15 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the door set forth on line 1 of claim 28 or if the applicant is attempting to set forth another door in addition to the door set forth on line 1 of claim 28.
Recitations such as “a door” on line 1 of claim 15 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the door set forth on line 1 of claim 29 or if the applicant is attempting to set forth another door in addition to the door set forth on line 1 of claim 29.
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 15-17, 20-22, 24, 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 10-0432253. KR 10-0432253 discloses a movable seal 1 for mounting to a door (not numbered but shown in figure 3), the moveable seal comprising:
a drop-plate 5 configured to move to close or cover a gap between a bottom of a door and a floor;
a plunger 2 extending laterally configured to be pressed by a door frame as the door closes;
a slider 9 arranged to be moved laterally by the plunger 2 when the plunger is pressed, the slider having one or more ramp surfaces (labeled below); and
one or more first rollers 4,
wherein the slider 9 is configured such that when pushed laterally by the plunger 2 the one or more ramp surfaces push against the one or more first rollers 4 moving the drop-plate 5 transversely to extend the drop plate outwards for closing or covering the gap to the floor (claim 15);
wherein the one or more first rollers 4 are coupled to the drop-plate 5 and configured such that as the slider 9 moves laterally the ramp surfaces push against the first rollers 4 pushing the plate 5 outwards (claim 16);
further comprising a mounting plate (labeled below) for mounting the movable seal to a door; and one or more second rollers 3 coupled to the mounting plate for guiding the lateral motion of the slider 2 (claim 17);
wherein the slider comprises parallel recesses (labeled below) and the second rollers are arranged to roll along the parallel recesses (claim 20);
wherein the slider comprises two parallel plates 9, 9 with the drop-plate 5 (labeled below) there between (claim 21);
wherein the plunger 2 comprises a rod biased by the spring 7 to extend from the slider to be pressed by a door frame (claim 22).
wherein the drop-plate 5 is biased upwards by the springs 6 against extending outwards such that when the plunger is not pressed the drop-plate rises (claim 24);
further comprising a housing (labeled below), and one or more drop-plate bias springs 6, the drop-plate bias springs 6 arranged between the housing and the drop-plate 5 (claim 25).
With respect to claim 28, KR 10-0432253 discloses a door (not numbered, but shown in figure 3) comprising the movable seal as set forth in the rejection of claim 15.
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 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-0432253 as applied to claims 15-17, 20-22, 24, 25 and 28 above, and further in view of Bates (US 531991). Bates discloses the use of two rollers 29 (fig. 3) to constrain the motion of a slider 11.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide KR 10-0432253 with an additional roller beneath the second rollers 3, as taught by Bates, with a reasonable expectation of success to more accurately guide the lateral motion of the slider.
With respect to claim 19, KR 10-0432253, as modified above, disclose that the one or more pairs of second rollers (note that an additional roller 3 will be disposed below each of the rollers 3) comprise at least two pairs of second rollers, a first pair of second rollers arranged towards a first end of the slider (labeled below) and a second pairs of second rollers arranged towards a second end of the slider (labeled below).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-0432253 as applied to claims 15-17, 20-22, 24, 25 and 28 above, and further in view of Cronenberg et al. (US 45191635). Cronenberg et al. discloses a movable seal comprising a rod 23 of a plunger 24 (fig. 3) which has a threaded portion 23 extending through a threaded hole 22 in a slider 20 for adjusting the extent the plunger extends 24.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide KR 10-0432253 with a threaded connection, as taught by Cronenberg et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a user to adjust the amount the plunger extends from the door.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-0432253 as applied to claims 15-17, 20-22, 24, 25 and 28 above, and further in view of Sowers (US 6195939). Sowers discloses a movable seal 10 (fig. 7) comprising one or more apertures (labeled below) therethrough for receiving fixings 54 (fig. 7) for fixing a bolt support (note that the fixings 54 can be used to fix a bolt support to the door) to a door 12, wherein a drop-plate 20 comprises elongate apertures 56 (fig. 5) such that the drop-plate moves with the fixings therethrough.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide KR 10-0432253 with apertures and fixings, as taught by Sowers, with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the amount of lateral movement of the guide plate as the guide plate moves.
Claims 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-0432253 in view of Sowers as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view EP 3 112 557. EP 3 112 557 discloses a door securing system comprising a bolting system comprising a vertically movable bolt 4 arranged to be thrown vertically downwards to secure the bottom of a door and a bolt-support 5, the vertically movable bolt 4 constrained by a bolt-support 5 as shown in figure 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide KR 10-0432253, as modified above, with a bolting system, as taught by EP 3 112 557, with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a user to lock the door in the closed position.
With respect to claim 29, KR 10-0432253, as modified above, discloses a door as shown in figure 3 of KR 10-0432253.
PNG
media_image1.png
1646
1108
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1656
1120
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