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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
It’s noted that there are two exactly identical IDS’s filed on 03/10/2023. Both have been considered, although redundant.
The information disclosure statements filed 03/10/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following (emphasis added): (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
In this case, a variety of PCT documents have been filed, corresponding to PCT application PCT/IB2021/057870. These appear to have been submitted for consideration by the Office but not listed in any of the IDS’s of record. If the Applicant wants these to be considered on the record, they should be listed in a subsequent IDS’s.
PNG
media_image1.png
314
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The information disclosure statements filed on 03/01/23 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
This objection specifically applies to these references:
DE 10200150
DE 20104055
DE 29805934
DE 8517810
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-6, the preamble reads “A net for a foldable beverage,” which should read “[[A]] The net for a foldable beverage…”
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 1-7 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 the limitation “the point at which the first and second side edges meet.” in the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the two rectangular sections" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from rejected claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE Simon (DE 10200150, cited in the Applicant’s 03/01/23 IDS) in view of Reiter (US 20100176583) and the attached .pdf Non-Patent Literature to “Common Paper Folds.” (please note an accessibility date going back to 2015 per the attached Wayback Machine screenshot).
There is an attached English translation for Simon ‘150.
Hyperlink for Common Paper Folds: https://shop.factory-express.com/Articles.asp?ID=285
Regarding Claim 1, Simon discloses a net for a foldable beverage shade comprising:
a base section (base 2) having a width; and
a shade section (shade section 4/5) having a length and a width; characterised in that:
the base section is separated from the shade section by a first width-wise fold line (12);
the shade section has a substantially central, length-wise fold line (11) , and another width-wise fold line (13);
the base section comprises two width-wise base sections (2, 2’), separated by a gap (no #, per annotated figure, see the unlabeled gap that is perpendicular to the gaps defined by 14/14’) ;
each of the width-wise sections has a respective first side edge (no #; see annotated figure) defining opposite respective sides of the gap, and a respective second side edge adjacent and substantially perpendicular to the first side edge, defined by a portion of the first width-wise fold line (12 and 12’); and
each of the width-wise sections further comprises a respective slit (14, 14’) extending from the first side edge and subtending 45 degrees about the point at which the first and second side edges meet (see the annotated figure, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
756
799
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
560
716
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Simon doesn’t disclose (per the striken-out limitations above):
1) a parallel pair of substantially central, length-wise fold lines separated by a separation width.
2) a single, central, second width-wise fold line
3) The gap being “of the separation width”
4) each of the respective slits being “arcuate.”
However, Reiter discloses a book with a spine, and opposite ends of the spine are bended, or folded edges that create the spine. See Figure 1. More specifically, Reitier discloses that such a feature is conventional and well-known. See the abstract – “more flexible spine than a conventionally shaped paperback book.” In other words, books with spines are well-known, and these contain a parallel pair of substantially central, length-wise fold lines separated by a separation width. It’s noted that Reiter’s spine in Figure 1 is a parallelogram cross-section (see Fig. 1) and this feature isn’t necessarily relied on, rather the disclosure in Reitier that indicates books with spines are conventional is relied on. Figure 1 of Reiter, outside of the parallelogram shape, would illustrate this feature. The Examiner also takes official notice to further demonstrate that this is a well-known feature.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Simon by applying these teachings/disclosure of Reitier to Simon, i.e. modifying Simon’s edge/fold line 11 so that it’s duplicated and forms a pair of lines 11, resulting in a spine-like look which would offer a specific aesthetic look and function if desired, i.e. akin to a sitting, vertically upright, open book. It is the Examiner’s position that such a configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice since Simon’s drink shade would appear to function in substantially the same manner, with or without this parallel pair of fold lines. Moreover, the Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to suggest that this feature is critical.
Additionally, regarding the limitation directed to the gap being “of the separation width,” it is the Examiner’s position that it also would have been obvious and intuitive to one of ordinary skill in the art, to further incorporate this feature, i.e. continuously extending each of the pair of lines 11 so that they transition into, or meet at each opposite end, the edges that define the unlabeled gaps that are perpendicular to the slits (14, 14’, 15, and 15’). Such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since this would most effectively rotate the base sections (2, 2’) and cover sections (3, 3’) inwards towards one another, relative to the spine, to achieve the folded, sitting configuration of Figure 1 (having a spine per the above modification).
With regards to the claimed feature of each of respective slits being “arcuate,” it is the Examiner’s position that shaping the slits to be arcuate would be an obvious matter of design choice, since the Applicant doesn’t disclose that the arcuate shape is critical; and Simon’s device would function substantially the same whether the slits were arcuate slits or straight slits. Please see MPEP 2144.04, Section IV. B. -- In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
With regards to the claimed feature of the single, central, second width-wise fold line: Common Paper Folds teaches a conventional “Right-Angle Fold,” which is accomplished per a width-wise fold line at the center of a piece of paper.
PNG
media_image4.png
320
494
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In light of Common Paper Fold’s teachings, it is the Examiner’s position that incorporating an additional fold-line at the center of Simon’s un-folded cover (see annotated Figure 2, below) would allow the cover to fold in half, or to fold over itself into an even more compact state for the convenience of storing the cover in compact spaces, like a user’s jeans/pants pocket for easy storage and transportation. In other words, looking at Figure 2; 3 folds over on top of 4/5 via 13/13’; the same goes for 2 over 4/5 via 12/12’; 4 folds over 5 via 11 or vice versa. Incorporating an additional “single, second width-wise fold line” would allow 4/5 to fold over itself once again, or fold Simon’s cover in half again. The end configuration would be a folded and compact cover having a substantially square or rectangular shape.
PNG
media_image5.png
740
742
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Simon as modified above, discloses the net foldable beverage shade according to claim 1, made from cardboard (see claim 5 of Simon).
Regarding Claim 5, Simon as modified above, discloses the net-foldable beverage shade according to claim 1, wherein each of the two rectangular sections (derived from 4 and 5 of Simon) of the shade section separated by the separation width has substantially the same size and shape as a credit card (per the rejection to claim 1 above and the explanation of how Simon folds over itself following all of the modification, the folded state of Simon’s shade would be understood to have substantially the same size and shape as a credit card since it would fit in a user’s jeans/pants pocket).
Moreover, to the extent the Applicant isn’t convinced, please see MPEP 2144.04, Section IV. A + B. Further changing the size and shape of Simon to be that of a credit card would be an obvious matter of design choice since this would be a matter of scaling the size of Simon’s folded shade, and adapting its shape to that of a credit card, for the predicable use of storing it in a wallet or pocket for easy storage and transportation.
IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE
A.Changes in Size/Proportion
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
B.Changes in Shape
In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding Claim 6, claim 6 is rejected by the same or substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 5, above.
Regarding Claim 7, Simon as modified per the rejection to claim 1 above, discloses a foldable beverage shade made from the net according to claim 1. See Figure 1 of Simon.
Claims 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE Simon (DE 10200150, cited in the Applicant’s 03/01/23 IDS) in view of Reiter (US 20100176583), the attached .pdf Non-Patent Literature to “Common Paper Folds.” (please note an accessibility date going back to 2015 per the attached Wayback Machine screenshot), and further in view of Kunststofftechnik (DE 20104055).
There is an attached English translation for Kunststofftechnik ‘055.
Regarding Claim 2, Simon as modified above, discloses the net foldable beverage shade according to claim 1.
However, Simon as modified doesn’t disclose that the length-wise portion of the shade section (1) on the opposite side of the second width-wise fold line (7) to the base section (2) has tapering width such that it is narrower farther from the second width-wise fold line (7).
Kunststofftechnik additionally discloses an arc-shaped base part (3, Fig. 3) and upper cover (7, Fig. 3), where both are the same or similar in shape to the base of the folded, end-configuration of Figure 2 of the Applicant’s Drawings.
Simon’s base (2) and cover (3), compared to Kunststofftechnik’s base (3), shows that Simon’s two base sections (2, 2’) and cover sections (3, 3’) are substantially square-shaped (see Fig. 2 and the final folded configuration of Figure 1), while Kunststofftechnik’s base (3) and upper cover (7) is arc-shaped. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Simon’s base and cover sections (2 + 3) so that they’re also arc-shaped as taught by Kunststofftechnik, which would resultingly make the base (2) and cover (3) sections, in their final folded configuration, arc-shaped. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this modification to offer additional benefits outside of aesthetic design choice, such as reduced material costs and/or aesthetic conformance to beverages with round tops or round bottoms, e.g. a wine glass.
Regarding Claim 3, Simon as modified above, discloses the net foldable beverage shade according to claim 2, wherein the base section (2) is substantially semi-circular, and the two width-wise base sections (3, 4) are substantially quadrant shaped (it is understood that the semi-circular and quadrant shapes would be present in Simon, as modified per the rejection to claim 2, above; i.e. the square-shaped bases have been modified to be arc-shaped / quadrants).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All of these references disclose beverage shades.
US 20220306342
AT-13977-U1
DE-29710606-U1
WO-9712533-A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL G HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6460. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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 Director, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762