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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 12-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully met by Saravis (USP 6215055).
Regarding Claim 1, Saravis discloses an pedal board bonding system, comprising:
a first effect pedal 14;
a pedal board 10 configured to mount the first effect pedal 14;
a first pedal attachment layer 32 attached to first effect pedal 14; and
a pedal board attachment layer 28 attached to the pedal board 10, where the pedal board attachment layer 28 is configured to bond to the first pedal attachment layer 32.
Regarding Claim 2, Saravis discloses the use of VELCRO as the pedal board attachment layer 28 and the first pedal attachment layer combination (col. 5 line 50 – col. 6 lines 2), and as such the pedal board attachment layer 28 and the first pedal attachment layer 32 are configured to detach from each other when a force is applied to the pedal board 10 before the pedal board attachment layer 28 detaches from the pedal board 10 or the first pedal attachment layer 32 detaches from the first effect pedal 14.
Regarding Claim 3, the use of VELCRO by Saravis for pedal board attachment layer 28 and pedal attachment layer 32 inherently allows for the first effect pedal to be reattachable to the pedal board at different locations.
Regarding Claim 4, Saravis discloses the pedal board 10 can be made of plastic or metal, which are known to be smooth and non- porous (col. 5 lines 14-22).
Regarding Claim 5, Saravis discloses the use of metal or wood (col. 5 lines 14-22) for the pedal board, which are known in the art to have surface energies greater than or equal to 30 dynes/cm.
Regarding Claim 9, Saravis discloses the use of VELCRO and a thickness of a VELCRO layer of 4mm to 8mm is known in the art to be inherent.
Regarding Claim 12, Saravis discloses a first effect pedal 14 described as “conventional” (Col. 5 line 26) and as such are known in the art to weigh less than 3 lbs.
Regarding Claim 13, Saravis discloses the pedal board 10 is inclined less or equal to 85 degrees from a ground surface (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Saravis discloses using VELCRO, so the first effect pedal bonds to the pedal board with a first bonding strength when the first pedal attachment layer bonds to the pedal board attachment layer.
Regarding Claim 16, Saravis discloses using VELCRO, which is known in the art to retain bonding strength between times of attachment.
Regarding Claim 17, Saravis discloses a second effect pedal and a second pedal attachment layer (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Saravis discloses a method of operating a pedal board bonding system comprising:
receiving, at a pedal board 10, a first effect pedal 14 at a first location on the pedal board 10;
bonding the first effect pedal 14 to the first location on the pedal board 10 by placing a first effect pedal attachment layer 28 between a first bottom surface of the first effect pedal 14 and a top surface of the pedal board 10 at the first location;
removing, from the pedal board 10, the first effect pedal 24;
receiving, at the pedal board 10, the first effect pedal 24 at a second location on the pedal board 10; and
bonding the first effect pedal 24 to the second location on the pedal board 10 by placing the first effect pedal attachment layer 28 between the first bottom surface of the first effect pedal 24 and the top surface of the pedal board 10 at the second location (As described above with claims 1-3, Saravis discloses the use of VELCRO to attach the effect pedals to the pedal board and as such the effect pedals can be placed at different locations).
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, Saravis discloses (Fig. 1) a second effect pedal at a second location on the pedal board bonded and detached in a similar manner to the first effect pedal (see claims 1-3 above).
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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saravis in view of McKinney et al (USPGP 20110271821).
Regarding Claim 6, Saravis (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 1 above) discloses all features claimed, but does not explicitly teach that the first pedal attachment layer includes a first polyvinyl chloride sheet or a first chlorinated polyvinyl chloride sheet; and the pedal board attachment layer comprises a second polyvinyl chloride sheet or a second chlorinated polyvinyl chloride sheet.
McKinney discloses a pedal board that comprises (para. 0028) double sided adhesive tape as an attachment layer. Official Notice is taken that polyvinyl chloride sheets are notoriously old and well known in the tape art to be used as adhesive tape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Saravis teachings to use such a polyvinyl chloride adhesive tape as suggested by McKinney as attachment layers, as VELCRO and adhesive tape are functionally equivalent attachment systems.
Regarding Claim 7, the Saravis/McKinney combination does not explicitly teach that the first polyvinyl chloride sheet remains attached to the first effect pedal in a temperature range of -10F to 150°F; and the second polyvinyl chloride sheet remains attached to the pedal board in a temperature range of -10F to 150°F. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first polyvinyl chloride sheet remain attached to the first effect pedal in a temperature range of -10F to 150°F; and the second polyvinyl chloride sheet remain attached to the pedal board in a temperature range of -10F to 150°F, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to maintain the adhesive properties in temperatures that are known to be typical working conditions for users.
Regarding Claim 8, Saravis discloses that the first pedal attachment layer 32 covers at least 50% of a bottom surface of the first effect pedal; and the pedal board attachment layer 28 covers at least 50% of a top surface of the pedal board 10.
Claim(s) 11,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saravis.
Regarding Claim 11, Saravis (applied here in a similar manner as claim 1) discloses all features claimed, but does not explicitly teach that the first pedal attachment layer has a surface energy in a range of 30 dynes/cm to 40 dynes/cm; and the pedal board attachment layer has a surface energy in a range of 30 dynes/cm to 40 dynes/cm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first pedal attachment layer have a surface energy in a range of 30 dynes/cm to 40 dynes/cm; and the pedal board attachment layer have a surface energy in a range of 30 dynes/cm to 40 dynes/cm, where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to have a surface energy that is a useful connection between the pedal and pedal board.
Regarding Claim 15, Saravis (applied here in a similar manner as claim 14) discloses all features claimed, but does not explicitly teach that a force to remove the first effect pedal from the pedal board is greater than 1.0 times and less than or equal to 1.5 times a force opposite a gravitational force that is required to lift the first effect pedal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a force to remove the first effect pedal from the pedal board is greater than 1.0 times and less than or equal to 1.5 times a force opposite a gravitational force that is required to lift the first effect pedal, where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to have a removal force that is a useful connection between the pedal and pedal board.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited show related teachings in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY DONELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
JEFFREY . DONELS
Examiner
Art Unit 2837
/JEFFREY DONELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837