DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13, 15-16 are pending.
Claim 14 is cancelled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1 includes shading. The use of shading may be used if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but NOT for cross sections. See MPEP § 608.02. In the instance case, legibility is reduced.
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 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recites, “the base part” in line 4 and “the protruding edge” in line 6, and it appears this language is intended to recite, “the block-shaped base part” and “the edge.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “Hook-and-loop means” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 15-16 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.
Re claim 15, claim 15 recites, “a recessed portion” in line 5. Claim 15 is dependent on claim 1. Thus, it is unclear if this refers to the same as claim 1, or is in addition to that of claim 1. It appears this feature is intended to refer to the same as claim 1, and is intended to recite, “the recessed portion” and will be interpreted as such
Re claim 16, claim 16 introduces numerous features, for example (inclusively; non-limitingly), “a block-shaped base part” and “a positioning element” etc. However, claim 16 depends from claim 1 which already introduces these elements. Thus, it is unclear if these refer to the same as claim 1, or are in addition to those of claim 1. It appears these features are intended to refer to the same as claim 1, and are intended to recite, for example, “the block-shaped base part” and “the positioning element” etc. and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 16 recites, “the opposite second contact surface” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the second contact surface” and will be interpreted as such.
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) 1-7, 9-13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US 2015/0360836) in view of Uchida (US 2020/0277122).
Re claim 1, Shi discloses an assembly (Fig. 2) of a stand construction frame (2, 4) and at least one stacking block (6) placeable thereon (Fig. 2) such that a further stand construction frame (2, 4) can be stacked on (Fig. 6) the at least one stacking block (6) placed on the stand construction frame (2, 4),
wherein the stand construction frame (2, 4) comprises a rectangular framework (Fig. 2) formed by four box profiles (2, 4) and defining a panel plane (proximate 204),
wherein the stacking block (6) includes a block-shaped base part (604), with a first contact surface (edges of 62) and a second contact surface (top of 604 and/or 64) opposite thereof (Fig. 6), and a positioning element (64) protruding from the base part (604), and wherein the second contact surface (top of 604 and/or 64) in the mounted condition (Fig. 2) extends beyond the protruding edge (as modified below) such that the further stand construction frame (2, 4) can be stacked on (Fig. 6) the second contact surface (top of 604 and/or 64),
but fails to disclose the framework comprising an edge protruding upwardly from the panel plane along an outer circumference of the framework and comprising a recessed portion that is recessed with respect to the panel plane and borders the upwardly protruding edge, the recessed portion extending along said edge, the positioning element is configured to be inserted into the recessed portion such that the first contact surface contacts the panel plane in a mounted condition.
However, Uchida discloses the framework (14) comprising an edge (at 14a) protruding upwardly from (Fig. 1) the panel plane (12) along an outer circumference of (Fig. 1) the framework (14) and comprising a recessed portion (15a, 15b) that is recessed ([0038], Fig. 1) with respect to the panel plane (12) and borders (Fig. 1) the upwardly protruding edge (at 14a), the recessed portion (15a, 15b) extending along said edge (at 14a), the positioning element (23, 24) is configured to be inserted into (Fig. 1) the recessed portion (15a, 15b) such that the first contact surface (of 20) contacts the panel plane (12) in a mounted condition (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Shi with the framework comprising an edge protruding upwardly from the panel plane along an outer circumference of the framework and comprising a recessed portion that is recessed with respect to the panel plane and borders the upwardly protruding edge, the recessed portion extending along said edge, the positioning element is configured to be inserted into the recessed portion such that the first contact surface contacts the panel plane in a mounted condition as disclosed by Uchida in order to allow for inclusion the protection members (20) without protruding (or protruding less) into the open space within the construction frame, saving space (as the protection member 6 of Shi protrudes into the area within 2/4).
Re claim 2, Shi as modified discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the positioning element (64) at the base part (604) is an edge (Fig. 3).
Re claim 3, Shi as modified discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the base part (604), when seen from above (Fig. 3), when placed in the stand construction frame (2, 4), perpendicular to the first contact surface (edges of 62), is shaped, but fails to disclose the base part is triangular.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Shi with the base part is triangular in order to increase strength and rigidity of the base part, as 6 of Shi is L-shaped, and adding material such that 6 is triangular would result in a stronger, more rigid element 6. In addition, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 4, Shi as modified discloses the assembly according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the second contact surface at a rectangular side of the base part, when seen from above perpendicular to the second contact surface, extends towards the base part.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Shi wherein the second contact surface at a rectangular side of the base part, when seen from above perpendicular to the second contact surface, extends towards the base part in order to make it easier for additional stand construction frames to slide over / onto stand construction frames below. In addition, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 5, Shi as modified discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the second contact surface (top of 604 and/or 64) at a side of the base part (604), when seen from above perpendicular to the second contact surface (top of 604 and/or 64), has a straight end (the inner ends of the L-shape of 604) towards the base part (604), but fails to disclose the side of the base part as tapered.
Re claim 6, Shi as modified discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the positioning element (64) is provided at (as “provided at” requires no particular contact, disposition or juxtaposition) the rectangular side (the inner L-shaped faces of 604 on the interior side thereof are rectangular) of the base part (604).
Re claim 7, Shi as modified discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the positioning element (64) is provided at (as “provided at” requires no particular contact, disposition or juxtaposition) two abutting rectangular sides (the inner L-shaped faces of 604 on the interior side thereof are rectangular) of the base part (604).
Re claims 9-13, Shi as modified discloses the assembly according to claim 1 (and claim 4 per claim 13), but fails to disclose wherein the stacking block has side surfaces having a length of 30.0mm-55.0 mm [claim 9], wherein a height of the base part is 12.0 mm [claim 10], wherein a height of the positioning element is 6.0 mm [claim 11], wherein a thickness of the positioning element is 3.5 mm [claim 12], and wherein a height of the second contact surface at a rectangular side of the base part is 2.0 mm [claim 13].
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Shi wherein the stacking block has side surfaces having a length of 30.0mm-55.0 mm [claim 9], wherein a height of the base part is 12.0 mm [claim 10], wherein a height of the positioning element is 6.0 mm [claim 11], wherein a thickness of the positioning element is 3.5 mm [claim 12], and wherein a height of the second contact surface at a rectangular side of the base part is 2.0 mm [claim 13] in order to provide sufficient structural rigidity and strength to the positioning element and base part while not utilizing material in excess. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 15, Shi as modified discloses a method (Fig. 6 showing stacking) for stacking multiple stand construction frames (2, 4), wherein use is made of an assembly (Fig. 1) according to claim 1 (see above), comprising:
placing (Fig. 2) the stand construction frame (2, 4) on a surface ([0047] discloses shipment, and shipment requires a surface);
placing (Fig. 2) the stacking block (6) on the stand construction frame (2, 4), such that the protruding positioning element (64; Uchida: bottom portion of 23 and of 24) inserts into a recessed portion (Uchida: 15a, 15b) and the first contact surface (of 62) contacts the panel plane (of 2 and 4);
placing (Fig. 6) a further stand construction frame (2, 4) on the assembly (Fig. 2) of the stand construction frame (2, 4) and the stacking block (6) such that the further stand construction frame (2, 4) is stacked on (Fig. 6) the second contact surface (top of 64 and/or 604) and the panel plane (of 2 and 4) of the further stand construction frame (2, 4) contacts the second contact surface (of 62) of the stacking block (6).
Re claim 16, Shi as modified discloses a block (6) for use in an assembly (Fig. 6) according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the block comprises the stacking block (6) having a block-shaped base part (604), with the first contact surface (edges of 62) and the opposite second contact surface (top of 604 and/or 64), and a positioning element (64) protruding from the base part (604), and wherein the second contact surface (top of 604 and/or 64) extends beyond the protruding edge (as modified below) in the mounted condition (Fig. 2) such that the further stand construction frame (2, 4) can be stacked on (Fig. 6) the second contact surface (top of 604 and/or 64),
but fails to disclose the positioning element is configured to be inserted into the recessed portion in a mounted condition such that the first contact surface contacts the panel plane.
However, Uchida discloses the recessed portion (15a, 15b) extending along said edge (at 14a), the positioning element (23, 24) is configured to be inserted into (Fig. 1) the recessed portion (15a, 15b) such that the first contact surface (of 20) contacts the panel plane (12) in a mounted condition (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stacking block of Shi with the positioning element is configured to be inserted into the recessed portion such that the first contact surface contacts the panel plane in a mounted condition as disclosed by Uchida in order to allow for inclusion the protection members (20) without protruding (or protruding less) into the open space within the construction frame, saving space (as the protection member 6 of Shi protrudes into the area within 2/4).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US 2015/0360836) in view of Uchida (US 2020/0277122) and Wright et al (“Wright”) (US 2015/0274407).
Re claim 8, Shi as modified discloses the assembly according to claim 1, but fails to disclose characterised, in that the framework comprises hook-and-loop means, oriented in the panel plane, and the base part comprises hook-and-loop means, oriented on the first contact surface, for connecting the base part to the framework.
However, Wright discloses characterised, in that the framework (11) comprises hook-and-loop means (23; [0028]), oriented in the panel plane (Fig. 3), and the base part (31) comprises hook-and-loop means (23), oriented on the first contact surface (of 32), for connecting the base part (31) to the framework (11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Shi characterised, in that the framework comprises hook-and-loop means, oriented in the panel plane, and the base part comprises hook-and-loop means, oriented on the first contact surface, for connecting the base part to the framework as disclosed by Wright in order to secure the base part to the framework in a tool-less, releasable manner.
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Specification: Applicant’s argument with respect to the specification objections is persuasive and objection to the specification is hereby withdrawn.
Objections to the Drawings: Applicant’s argument with respect to the drawings is persuasive and objection to the drawings (for the reasons stated in the previous rejection) is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is partially persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby partially withdrawn. However, the same issues exist in claim 16, and those rejections are thus maintained.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose the protruding positioning element designed to be inserted into a recessed portion of the framework. Applicant states that this is different than Shi, where the corner projection piece is stacked onto another corner projection piece. The previous office action and the above do not rely on Shi as disclosing this element. As noted previously and in the above, “Uchida discloses the framework (14) comprising an edge (at 14a) protruding upwardly from (Fig. 1) the panel plane (12) along an outer circumference of (Fig. 1) the framework (14) and comprising a recessed portion (15a, 15b) that is recessed ([0038], Fig. 1) with respect to the panel plane (12) and borders (Fig. 1) the upwardly protruding edge (at 14a), the recessed portion (15a, 15b) extending along said edge (at 14a), the positioning element (23, 24) is configured to be inserted into (Fig. 1) the recessed portion (15a, 15b) such that the first contact surface (of 20) contacts the panel plane (12) in a mounted condition (Fig. 1).” Motivation for the proposed combination is also found in the above.
Applicant next argues that the frame must be coupled to the corner projection before the frame can be stacked onto another frame. With respect to claim 1, the claim is drawn to an assembly, not a method of stacking. The order of process is not relevant, as the claims are governed by the final assembly of the apparatus. With respect to claim 15, there is no order of process claimed. There is no claim language precluding coupling of corner pieces before stacking of frames.
Applicant next argues that Uchida and Wright do not provide for stacking solutions and instead relate to protecting devices. Neither Uchida nor Wright are relied upon disclosing stacking solutions. Moreover, the claims are drawn to an assembly of a stand construction frame. This field of endeavor is extremely broad. Both Uchida and Wright fall within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
Applicant next argues that the corner piece 20 of Uchida is located in a cutout portion 15 but does not extend along an upwardly protruding edge of the framework. However, when viewing Fig. 3, the inner edge of, for example 14a, is an upwardly protruding edge, at least from the unlabeled base part disposed on the bottom thereof. 15 extends along this edge and thus, extends along an upwardly protruding edge of the framework. Applicant further contends that the corner pieces thereof have flexibility to absorb movements. Similar to the above, there is no claim language precluding flexibility.
Applicant next argues that the alleged combination does not recognize the problems addressed by the claims. There is no requirement in 35 USC 103 that the cited prior art recognize problems addressed by the claims. The relevant question is what would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As pointed out by Applicant, Shi discloses frame stacking. Moreover, all 3 references are within the same field of endeavor as Applicant’s claimed invention. Motivation for each proposed modification is provided in the above. As such, the combinations meet the claims.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As stated above, the proposed modifications are within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Next, Applicant argues there is no motivation or suggestion in the references to combine. There is no requirement that the references provide a suggestion or motivation. The relevant question is what would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Motivation was provided in the above. Applicant has provided no arguments or evidence contradicting this motivation.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the remaining claims are addressed by the above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571)270-3238. 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635