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 Amendment
Amendments submitted on 5/18/26 include amendments to the claims. Claims 18,20-22 and 24-36 are pending. Claim 18 has been amended. Claims 29-34 remain withdrawn. Claims 19 and 23 have been cancelled. Claims 35-36 have been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. However, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Tang et al. (CN203514056U).
Claim Objections
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: Grammatical error in line 15: “…the second end of the first portion and the second end of the second portion are not contact with each other”. The suggested change is: “…the second end of the first portion and the second end of the second portion are not in contact with each other”. 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.
Claim 35 is 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.
The term “approximately perpendicular” in claim 35 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately perpendicular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what relative orientation is being claimed.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN206986539U) in view of Tang et al. (CN203514056U).
Regarding claim 36, Wang teaches a lid structure (see abstract) comprising: a frame body 1 including a window 15, an opening 14, and a guiding groove 12; and a lid plate 2; wherein the frame body 1 is configured to allow the lid plate 2 to be inserted into or pulled out from the guiding groove 12 through the opening 14, the window 15 being covered by the lid plate 2 in a state in which the lid plate 2 is inserted in the guiding groove 12 (see pages 2-3 of the translation, figures 1-4); the frame body 1 comprises the guiding groove 12 comprising a first abutment member and a second abutment member connected to each other, the first abutment member abutting against the lid plate 2 on a lower side of the lid plate, the second abutment member abutting against the lid plate 2 on an upper side of the lid plate; extension directions of the first abutment member and the second abutment member are parallel to a surface of the lid plate 2, the lid plate 2 is sandwiched between the first abutment member and the second abutment member along a direction perpendicular to the surface of the lid plate (see figures 1 and 4). Wang does not explicitly teach that a contact area between the first abutment member and the lid plate is greater than a contact area between the second abutment member and the lid plate. Tang et al. teaches a door for a washing machine (see abstract) and that a contact area between the first abutment member 5b and the lid plate 2 (see combined contact area of both prongs of 5b with lid plate 2) is greater than a contact area between the second abutment member 5a and the lid plate 2; in a configuration that allows for simple and convenient assembly and disassembly (see figures 1-2, page 2 of the translation). Since both Wang and Tang et al. teach doors for washing machines it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the contact area between the first abutment member and the lid plate may be greater than a contact area between the second abutment member and the lid plate in the system by Wang so as to improve the simplicity and convenience of assembly and disassembly, as shown to be known and conventional by Tang et al. Furthermore, it has been determined that changes in relative dimensions constitute an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 35 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 18, 20-22, 24-28 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Wang (CN206986539U). Wang fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of independent claims 18 and 35, including the following limitations of claim 18: “…a second end of the first portion and a second end of the second portion being not connected with each other…”, as well as the following limitations of claim 35: “…a second end of the first portion and a second end of the second portion are bent toward the opening of the U-shaped frame structure…”. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL BARR can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights