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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2022 was partially considered by the examiner. The internet references were not considered. Applicant is required to provide screenshots of these references.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 3 recites “attachment means” corresponding to zip ties, cord, wire, carabiners, straps, snaps, rivets, hook and loop fasteners.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lally US 11911668.
Regarding claim 1, Lally discloses a hauling device comprising:
a sheet of flexible material (8) having a front edge (side with 11);
a handle member attached to said front edge of said sheet of flexible material (Fig. 2), said handle member comprising a pair of handle bars (6) wherein one end of each handle bar is attached to a hinge mechanism (7, Fig. 2) so that said handle bars may pivot with respect to one another between an open position (Fig. 1) and a closed position (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Lally further discloses that said sheet of flexible material includes a series of eyelets (9) about a periphery thereof (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Lally further discloses that attachment means (10) are used to connect said handle member to said sheet of flexible material so that said attachment means are disposed through said eyelets (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Lally further discloses that each eyelet includes a grommet (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Lally further discloses that said attachment means are selected from the group consisting of zip ties, cord, wire, carabiners and straps (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Lally further discloses that said hinge mechanism is formed from polyvinyl chloride pipe (col. 3 ln. 25-30).
Regarding claim 8, Lally further discloses that said handle bars are formed from polyvinyl chloride pipe (col. 3 ln. 25-30).
Regarding claim 9, Lally further discloses that said handle bars form an angle of about 180 degrees in said open position (Fig. 1), and are disposed in parallel relation in said closed position (Fig. 2).
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) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lally US 11911668 in view of Emmert US 907687.
Regarding claim 6, Lally does not teach that said hinge mechanism is formed from a pair of tee couplings that are rotatably connected to an axis bar.
Emmert teaches a hinge mechanism, wherein the hinge is formed from a pair of tee couplings (d, d’) that are rotatably connected to an axis bar (f). Emmert so teaches in order to allow the legs to rotatably open and close. Because both Lally and Emmert teach a hinge for opening an closing two legs, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the hinge (7) of Lally by simply substituting in the hinge in the form of two tee couplings (d, d’) as taught by Emmert, in order to achieve the predictable result of rotatably opening and closing the legs (6) in Lally. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I)(B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barry US 4261611 for the truck canopy’s hinge, frame and cover.
Barnard US 4434829 for the hinge, rods and flexible sheet.
Underwood US 4561480 and Ricker US 5451107 for the hinge, rod and flexible sheet.
Noonan US 7984733 for the sheet with V-shaped flexible edge.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm 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 supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
BRIAN O. PETERS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745