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
As an initial matter, Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this application.
An IDS should be filed for the reference cited in [0016] (currently listed as part of the second claim).
Drawings
The drawings filed on June 23, 2021 are accepted.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains less than 50 words. It further does not provide a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and does not include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the specification, PG Pub US 2024/0325772 A1, [0002]: the term “a swede lace” should be corrected to –a suede lace--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected because of the minor informalities. The paragraph numbers [15] and [16] should be deleted and replaced with Claim 1 and Claim 2.
Claim 2 is objected to because it does not follow the statutory requirement of claims. See MPEP 608.01(k) Statutory Requirement of Claims. “35 U.S.C. 112 requires that the specification shall particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as his or her invention. The portion of the application in which this is done forms the claim or claims. This is an important part of the application, as it is the definition of that for which protection is granted.”
In claim 2, the statement starting “Conducting energy…” in line 3 till the end of the claims (i.e., the end of [16]) should be deleted. Since it is recited in the original claim when the application is filed (3/29/23), it is considered part of the original disclosure. Applicant may amend this deleted portion to the specification if Applicant wish to retain this disclosure in the specification. It would not be considered as introducing new matters.
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 1-2 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a polarized double terminating metal spirally helix frame” that renders the scope of the claim indefinite. A dream-catcher is known to be a stand-along traditional craft that is hung over a cradle or bed as spiritual protection. To induce polarization to a metal wire, i.e., to make a polarized metal wire, it requires a source to separate the charges, such as an external electric field, a magnetic field, or a nearby charged object. Induced polarization is not a permanent property. In contrast it is a temporary phenomenon that occurs when the source is present and for a period of time after the source is removed. Hence, it is unclear if “a polarized double terminating metal” refers to the state of the metal before or at the time of forming the dreamcatcher, or at most a finite period of time after the frame is formed. If the external sources are required in order to maintain the metal polarized such that the dream catcher comprises a polarized metal frame all the time in order to perform its intended function of conducting energy, the external source is considered a critical element of the claimed apparatus and it is missing in the claims. For examination purpose, since the external source is not recited in the claim, the metal frame that is polarized interpreted and considered to be an intended use of the claim apparatus.
Claim 1 recites “the open center” at the end of the claim that renders the scope of the claim indefinite. The term “the open center” lacks proper antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear which object the open center refers to, and which portion of the object is considered the open center. For examination purpose, the open center is considered the open space between the helical turns.
Claim 2 recites that the frame “has been given magnetic field properties enabling it to conduct energy particles” that renders the scope of the claim indefinite. A property is a characteristic of a material. The material naturally carries the property instead of being given to. For examination purpose, claim 2 is interpreted such that the metal frame is configured to become polarized when it is electronically and/or magnetically charged.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen Aslan Heart, “Path of the spirit dream-catchers of the seventh fire”. 2007, Path of the Spirit Dream-Catchers, https://real-dream-catchers.com/, hereinafter Heart, evidenced by Instructables Craft, “How to create a dreamcatcher”. 2022, https://www.instructables.com/How-to-Create-a-Dreamcatcher/, hereinafter Craft, and Amazon.com, “OMA blue dream catcher, 3D design, 2010, https://www.amazon.com/OMA-Dream-Catcher-Traditional-Diameter/, hereinafter Amazon, further evidenced by Spiritual Nexus, “Spiritual meaning of dream catchers”. Feb. 18, 2023, https://spiritualnexus.net/spiritual-meaning-of-dream-catchers/, hereinafter Nexus, and in view of Open Stax “College Physics 23.1 Induced Emf and Magnetic Flux”, 2021, https://openstax.org/books/college-physics/pages/23-1-induced-emf-and-magnetic-flux, hereinafter Stax.
Claims 1-2. Heart teaches a dream-catcher apparatus (p.1: The seventh fire dreamcatchers), comprising:
a double terminating metal spiraling helix frame with netting disposed in the open center (see the picture of the dreamcatchers on pp.1 and 2) – the dreamcatcher shown in the illustration of p.1 and the photo of p.2 shows a spiral helix frame that have two termination ends. Netting is disposed in the open space between the helical turns.
Heart does not teach that (1) the frame is made of metal, and (2) the metal is polarized and energy conducting, wherein metal has been given magnetic field properties enabling it to conduct energy particles.
In regard to the above feature (1), it is well-known in the field of dreamcatcher manufacture that various materials, including metal, may be used for making the frame of a dreamcatcher, and 3D metal-based dreamcatcher is commercially available. This is evidenced by Craft, p.1. Dream catcher supplies: the second bullet: “metal wire”. This is further evidenced by Amazon, p.8 the review made by Amazon Customer: “this was made with metal rings…”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the frame of the dreamcatcher of Heart employ such a feature of being a metal frame, as taught in Craft and Amazon for the advantage of being an alternative material being used as a frame of a dreamcatcher.
In regard to the above feature (2), neither Heart, Craft nor Amazon teaches that the metal is polarized by a magnetic field and is energy conducing enabling conducting energy particles.
As evidenced in Nexus, dreamcatcher is known to be a Native American traditional cultural craft object that is designed to not only for decoration purpose, but also for filtering dreams by filtering energy (p.2) to provide positive energy (p.7) and protect people from negative energy (p.9).
Hence, in an analogous metallic material energy flow field of endeavor, Stax teaches that metals can be polarized by a magnetic field thus energy conducing enabling conducting energy particles (p.2, before FIG 23.3: The apparatus used by Faraday to demonstrate that magnetic fields can create current is illustrated in Figure 23.3. When the switch is closed, a magnetic field is produced in the coil on the top part of the iron ring and transmitted to the coil on the bottom part of the ring….It was found that each time the switch is closed, the galvanometer detects a current in one direction in the coil on the bottom…If the switch remains closed or open fo any length of time, there is no current through the galvanometer. Closing and opening the switch induces the current. It is the change in magnetic field that creates the current…The current is a result of an emf induced by a changing magnetic field, whether or not there is a path for current to flow) – a current is an electron flow, which causes the metal to become polarized and conductive. The electron is a type of energy particles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the metal frame of the dreamcatcher of Heart, Craft and Amazon combined employ such a feature of being polarized by a magnetic field thus energy conducing enabling conducting energy particles, for the advantage of creating an energy flow to fulfill the intended purpose of a dreamcatcher.
In regard to the limitation of the metal frame is polarized and has been given magnetic field properties enabling it to conduct energy particles, since it requires a source to polarize a metal frame, to make the metal frame polarized is considered an intended use of the metal frame. Further upon the metal frame being polarized, it results in the metal frame being polarized and hence conductive that is being capable of conducting energy particles. It is the result of the intended use. Such a limitation does not further limit the structure of the claimed device. There is no recitation in the claim what structural limitation causes the distance effect to be eliminated other than using a light reducing attenuator. As Stax teaches that that magnetic fields can create current of a metal piece, it is considered reading on the limitation of the metal frame is polarized and has been given magnetic field properties enabling it to conduct energy particles. For the above consideration, see MPEP § 2114.II: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-SHAN YANG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm PST.
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, Pascal M Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/YI-SHAN YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798