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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the claims are Markush claims, examiner disagrees. As cited in Applicants remarks in lines 17-19 “We submit that it is only required that “a Markush group, incorporated in a claim, should be ‘closed,’ i.e., it must be characterized with a transition phrase “consisting of” rather than “comprising” or “including””. That is correct a Markush group does require a closed group and the transition phrase “consisting of”, both of which the instant claims do not. The claims do not use the transition phrase “consisting of” or a similar introductory phrase. The claims in the instant application are not similar to the example cited in the remarks, and are not Markush claims for the reasons stated above. The use of alternatives such as “or” does not alone mean the claims contain a Markush group. Applicant argues that the claims are “not characterized by “comprising” but by the transition phrase “or”, thus fulfilling the requirement that “members of the Markush group are used singly”. As stated before there are no recited Markush groups, and the transition word “or” is not an indicator of a Markush group nor is it used as an introductory phrase to the alternate listings. The introductory phrase used before the alternatives recited is “comprising”. Again, the claims are not Markish claims and the claims are directed to multiple species and should be amended to encompass the single elected species.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, A-2, B-1, C-1(b) and D-2 in the reply filed on 02/02/2023 is acknowledged. Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 11 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-4, 6-8 and 11 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 recites “wherein the side frame and the bottom plate are of an integrated structure or split-style” and “a bent portion that is bent towards the inner side of the side frame or the outer side of the side frame”, this is unclear. It is unclear what the applicant considers to read on the elected species. The claim recites a combination of structures, it could be integrated style with bent portions bent towards the inner side of the side frame, it could be integrated style with bent portion bent towards the outer side of the side frame, it could be a split-type structure with bent portions bent towards the inner side of the side frame, it could be split-type style with bent portion bent towards the outer side of the side frame. Claims should be amended to encompass the single elected species.
Claim 2 recites “the side plates and the bottom plate are of an integrated structure or split structure” and “the corner protectors are connected through welding, fastening hook type structures or plug-in type structures”, this is unclear. The integrated or split-type structure was already recited in claim 1 and as discussed is unclear in regards to the species election. Also, could the type of type of structures change between claim 1 and claim 2, so that one could have an integrated type and a different one would be split type, creating more options and further ambiguity? The same reasoning applies to the connection type it should read on the election.
Claim 6 recites “wherein each metal connecting component is a third metal sheet” this is unclear. A first and second metal sheet are not recited in claims 1 or 4 from which 6 depends. What are the first and second metal sheets? Is the recited third metal sheet just a metal sheet or is it made from different additional metals? Should there be a total of three metal sheets?
Claim 7 recites “a fourth metal sheet”, this is unclear. A first through third metal sheet are not recited in claims 1 or 2 from which 7 depends. It is unclear if the dependency of the claim is incorrect, or if the structure requires at least four metal sheets and it claims a fourth metal sheet meaning there is already a first, second and third metal sheet.
Claim 7 recites “the fourth metal sheet is independently formed or is integrated with the inner flanging” and “when the fourth metal sheet is the independently formed member, the inner flanging is plugged into the third notch, and correspondingly, the bottom plate is plugged into the fourth notch; or the inner flanging is plugged into the fourth notch, and correspondingly, the bottom plate is plugged into the third notch; when the fourth metal sheet is integrated with the inner flanging, the bottom plate is plugged into the fourth notch”, this is unclear. How can all this be true at the same time? Both “when the fourth metal sheet is independently formed” and “when the fourth metal sheet is integrated”? If the fourth metal sheet is independently formed is the last portion starting with “when the fourth metal sheet is integrated” disregarded and vice-versa? It is unclear what is required and claims should be directed to the elected species.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the side frame, the bottom plate or the corner protector is of a solid sheet metal structure, or a plate net of any mesh stretching structure, a meshed structure, or a stretching sheet metal structure with any mesh in the middle; and patterns may be stamped on the outer wall of the corner protector”, this is unclear. How can the pattern be stamped a meshed structure? Does this only apply to the solid sheet metal? “May be stamped” but not required? It is unclear if the limitation of being stamped is part of the claimed invention. How will a mesh stretching structure or mesh structure provide rigidity to form a side frame or corner protectors?
Claim 11 recites “a fourth metal sheet”, again this is unclear as no first, second or third metal sheet are claimed in either claim 1 or claim 3.
Claim 11 recites “the fourth metal sheet is independently formed or is integrated with the inner flanging” and “when the fourth metal sheet is the independently formed member, the inner flanging is plugged into the third notch, and correspondingly, the bottom plate is plugged into the fourth notch; or the inner flanging is plugged into the fourth notch, and correspondingly, the bottom plate is plugged into the third notch; when the fourth metal sheet is integrated with the inner flanging, the bottom plate is plugged into the fourth notch”, this is unclear. How can all this be true at the same time? Both “when the fourth metal sheet is independently formed” and “when the fourth metal sheet is integrated”? If the fourth metal sheet is independently formed is the last portion starting with “when the fourth metal sheet is integrated” disregarded and vice-versa? It is unclear what is required and claims should be directed to the elected species.
Claims not directly addressed are included due to their dependencies. Generally, it is unclear what applicant considers the elected subject matter as the claims are directed to multiple species. As discussed previously claims are not Markush claims and should be rewritten to recite the structure of the elected species.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren Kmet whose telephone number is (313)446-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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.
/L KMET/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735