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 .
Claims 1-6, filed 6/19/23, are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 6 recite “in room” suggested to be changed to --in a room-- for grammatical reasons. 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 1-6 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.
Claims 1 and 6 recite “a back scratching unit having a scratching panel being perpendicularly oriented with a pair of engaging panels” suggested to be changed to --a back scratching unit having a scratching panel being perpendicularly oriented with respect to a pair of engaging panels-- for clarity.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trevino, Jr. (2020/0107988) in view of Meglin et al. (2007/0276438) and Hanna (7,320,667).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 5 and 9-10 Trevino discloses a back scratching device being mountable to an edge of a door to facilitate a user to scratch their back, said device comprising: a back scratching unit having a scratching panel (structure between where 110 is pointing in fig. 9 and blocks that form guide slot 180) being perpendicularly oriented with a pair of engaging panels (blocks that form guide slot 180, fig. 9), said pair of engaging panels being spaced apart from each other thereby facilitating a door in room to be extended between (Fig. 9-10) said pair of engaging panels having said scratching panel being exposed wherein said scratching panel is configured to be positioned to facilitate a user to position their back against said scratching panel (Fig. 10); and a plurality of nubs 120, each of said plurality of nubs being positioned on said back scratching unit (Fig. 9) wherein each of said plurality of nubs is configured to scratch the user's back when the user leans against said back scratching unit (Fig. 10), but is silent regarding frictionally engaging the door between said pair of engaging panels for retaining said back scratching unit on the door.
However, in fig. 15 Meglin teaches frictionally [0049] engaging a doorjamb 1104 between a pair of engaging panels 1100 for retaining a back alignment unit on the doorjamb [0049]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Trevino’s engagement between the door and the pair of engaging panels with a frictional engagement, as taught by Meglin, for the purpose of reducing movement between the door and the device to allow the user to massage their back against a secure device.
The modified Trevino is silent regarding a pair of engaging pads, each of said engaging pads being bonded to a respective one of said engaging panels thereby facilitating each of said engaging pads to frictionally engage the door when the door is positioned between said pair of engaging panels for retaining said back scratching unit on the door.
However, in fig. 1-2 Hanna teaches a pair of engaging pads (36, Col. 3, ll. 26-29), each of said engaging pads being bonded to a respective one of engaging panels 30 thereby facilitating each of said engaging pads to frictionally engage a chair when the chair is positioned between said pair of engaging panels (Fig. 1) for retaining a scratching unit on the chair (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Trevino’s pair of engaging panels with the addition of a pair of engaging pads, as taught by Hanna, for the purpose of providing a further friction fit.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trevino, Jr., Meglin and Hanna, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Free (9,186,294).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Trevino discloses that said scratching panel has a front surface (surface closest to 110 in fig. 9, Trevino), a back surface (surface in contact with blocks that form guide slot 180, Trevino) and a perimeter edge extending between said front surface and said back surface (perimeter edge between the front and back surfaces, Trevino), said perimeter edge having a top side (long side visible in fig. 9, Trevino), a bottom side (side opposite to the long side visible in fig. 9, Trevino), a first lateral side (vertical side visible in fig. 9, Trevino) and a second lateral side (vertical side opposite to the visible vertical side in fig. 9, Trevino); each of said engaging panels has a front edge (edge of blocks that form guide slot 180 that are in contact with the scratching panel, Trevino) and a first surface (inner surfaces of blocks that form guide slot 180 that face one another, Trevino), said front edge of each of said engaging panel being attached to said back surface of said scratching panel (Fig. 9 Trevino); and each of said engaging panels is spaced inwardly from a respective one of said first lateral side and said second lateral side of said perimeter edge of said scratching panel (Fig. 9 Trevino) having said first surface of each of said pair of engaging panels being directed toward each other (Fig. 9 Trevino), but is silent regarding that each of said engaging panels extends substantially between said top side and said bottom side of said perimeter edge of said scratching panel such that a top edge and a bottom edge of each of said engaging panels is spaced from a respective one of said top side and said bottom side of said perimeter edge of said scratching panel. However, in fig. 1A Free teaches that each of said engaging panels (20 and 22) extends substantially between said top side (where 14 is pointing in fig. 1A) and said bottom side (opposite side to where 14 is pointing in fig. 1A) of said perimeter edge of said scratching panel such that a top edge and a bottom edge of each of said engaging panels is spaced from a respective one of said top side and said bottom side of said perimeter edge of said scratching panel (Fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Trevino’s pair of engaging panels with engaging panels that are spaced from the top and bottom side of the scratching panel, as taught by Free, for the purpose of providing an alternate engaging panels structure having the predictable results of engaging a door. The modified Trevino discloses the claimed invention and although it appears that fig. 1A of Free teaches that the engaging panels are evenly spaced between the top and bottom side of the scratching panel, Free does not explicitly recite that the engaging panels are evenly spaced between the top and bottom side of the scratching panel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the spacing with even spacing of the engaging panels from the top and bottom side of the scratching panel, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and it appears that even spacing would perform equally as well at providing an attachment to a door. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Trevino discloses that said device includes a scratch pad (where 110 is pointing to in fig. 9, Trevino) having a rear surface (surface furthest from 120) being bonded to said front surface of said scratching panel (Fig. 9 Trevino) having said rear surface completely covering said front surface of said scratching panel (Fig. 9, Trevino); said scratch pad has an upper edge (horizontal long edge in fig. 9, Trevino) being aligned with said top side of said perimeter edge of said scratching panel (Fig. 9, Trevino); said scratch pad has a lower edge (horizontal long edge not visible in fig. 9, Trevino) being aligned with said bottom side of said perimeter edge of said scratching panel (Fig. 9, Trevino); and each of said upper edge and said lower edge of said scratch pad is rounded (Fig. 6 and 9 show rounded corners of the upper and lower edges of the scratch pad, Trevino).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Trevino discloses that each of said nubs (120 Trevino) has a back end (end connected to 110, Trevino), a front end (opposite free end of 120, Trevino) and an outer surface extending between said front end and said back end (Fig. 5 and 9, Trevino), said back end of each of said nubs being bonded to a forward surface of said scratch pad (Fig. 9 Trevino); said front end of each of said plurality of nubs is rounded (Fig. 5 Trevino); said outer surface of each of said plurality of nubs tapers between said back end and said front end (Fig. 5 Trevino); and said plurality of nubs is arranged in a plurality of columns and rows on a forward surface of said scratch pad ([0027] Trevino).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trevino, Jr., Meglin, Hanna and Free, as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Kimock et al. (2018/0214311).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Trevino discloses that each of said engaging pads has a front surface (surface of engaging pads in contact with the engaging panels, Hanna) and a back surface (opposite free end surface, Hanna); said front surface of each of said engaging pads is bonded to said first surface of said respective engaging panel (Fig. 1 Hanna) having said front surface of each of said engaging pads covering said first surface of said respective engaging panel (Fig. 1 Hanna); but does not explicitly recite that each of said engaging pads covering completely said first surface of said respective engaging panel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the coverage of the engaging pads on the engaging panels, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and it appears that completely covering the engaging panels with the engaging pads would perform equally as well at providing a friction attachment to a door. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The modified Trevino discloses that each of said engaging pads has a rear edge (free edge closest to where 36 is pointing in fig. 1 of Hanna) being aligned with a back edge (free edge closest to where 36 is pointing in fig. 1 of Hanna) of said respective engaging panel (30 Hanna), but is silent regarding that said rear edge of each of said engaging pads being rounded; and each of said pair of engaging pads is comprised of a resiliently compressible material to enhance gripping the door. However, in fig. 6 and 20 Kimock teaches that said rear edge of each of said engaging pads being rounded (fig. 20 [0112]); and each of said pair of engaging pads is comprised of a resiliently compressible material (silicone rubber [0050]) to enhance gripping. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Trevino’s pair of engaging pads with rounded edges and a resiliently compressible material, as taught by Kimock, for the purpose of providing an alternate engaging pad structure having the predictable results of frictionally engaging a door. The modified Trevino discloses that the engaging pads having rounded edges inhibit said rear edge of each of said engaging pads from catching on the door (due to the rounded edge, Kimock).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trevino, Jr. (2020/0107988) in view of Free (9,186,294), Meglin et al. (2007/0276438), Hanna (7,320,667) and Kimock et al. (2018/0214311).
Regarding claim 6, in fig. 5 and 9-10 Trevino discloses a back scratching device being mountable to an edge of a door to facilitate a user to scratch their back, said device comprising: a back scratching unit having a scratching panel (structure between where 110 is pointing in fig. 9 and blocks that form guide slot 180) being perpendicularly oriented with a pair of engaging panels (blocks that form guide slot 180, fig. 9), said pair of engaging panels being spaced apart from each other thereby facilitating a door in room to be extended between (Fig. 9-10) said pair of engaging panels having said scratching panel being exposed wherein said scratching panel is configured to be positioned to facilitate a user to position their back against said scratching panel (Fig. 10); said scratching panel has a front surface (surface closest to 110 in fig. 9, Trevino), a back surface (surface in contact with blocks that form guide slot 180, Trevino) and a perimeter edge extending between said front surface and said back surface (perimeter edge between the front and back surfaces, Trevino), said perimeter edge having a top side (long side visible in fig. 9, Trevino), a bottom side (side opposite to the long side visible in fig. 9, Trevino), a first lateral side (vertical side visible in fig. 9, Trevino) and a second lateral side (vertical side opposite to the visible vertical side in fig. 9, Trevino); each of said engaging panels has a front edge (edge of blocks that form guide slot 180 that are in contact with the scratching panel, Trevino) and a first surface (inner surfaces of blocks that form guide slot 180 that face one another, Trevino), said front edge of each of said engaging panel being attached to said back surface of said scratching panel (Fig. 9 Trevino); and each of said engaging panels is spaced inwardly from a respective one of said first lateral side and said second lateral side of said perimeter edge of said scratching panel (Fig. 9 Trevino) having said first surface of each of said pair of engaging panels being directed toward each other (Fig. 9 Trevino), but is silent regarding that each of said engaging panels extends substantially between said top side and said bottom side of said perimeter edge of said scratching panel such that a top edge and a bottom edge of each of said engaging panels is spaced from a respective one of said top side and said bottom side of said perimeter edge of said scratching panel.
However, in fig. 1A Free teaches that each of said engaging panels (20 and 22) extends substantially between said top side (where 14 is pointing in fig. 1A) and said bottom side (opposite side to where 14 is pointing in fig. 1A) of said perimeter edge of said scratching panel such that a top edge and a bottom edge of each of said engaging panels is spaced from a respective one of said top side and said bottom side of said perimeter edge of said scratching panel (Fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Trevino’s pair of engaging panels with engaging panels that are spaced from the top and bottom side of the scratching panel, as taught by Free, for the purpose of providing an alternate engaging panels structure having the predictable results of engaging a door.
The modified Trevino discloses the claimed invention and although it appears that fig. 1A of Free teaches that the engaging panels are evenly spaced between the top and bottom side of the scratching panel, Free does not explicitly recite that the engaging panels are evenly spaced between the top and bottom side of the scratching panel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the spacing with even spacing of the engaging panels from the top and bottom side of the scratching panel, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and it appears that even spacing would perform equally as well at providing an attachment to a door. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The modified Trevino is silent regarding frictionally engaging the door between said pair of engaging panels for retaining said back scratching unit on the door.
However, in fig. 15 Meglin teaches frictionally [0049] engaging a doorjamb 1104 between a pair of engaging panels 1100 for retaining a back alignment unit on the doorjamb [0049]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Trevino’s engagement between the door and the pair of engaging panels with a frictional engagement, as taught by Meglin, for the purpose of reducing movement between the door and the device to allow the user to massage their back against a secure device. The modified Trevino is silent regarding a pair of engaging pads, each of said engaging pads being bonded to a respective one of said engaging panels thereby facilitating each of said engaging pads to frictionally engage the door when the door is positioned between said pair of engaging panels for retaining said back scratching unit on the door.
However, in fig. 1-2 Hanna teaches a pair of engaging pads (36, Col. 3, ll. 26-29), each of said engaging pads being bonded to a respective one of engaging panels 30 thereby facilitating each of said engaging pads to frictionally engage a chair when the chair is positioned between said pair of engaging panels (Fig. 1) for retaining a scratching unit on the chair (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Trevino’s pair of engaging panels with the addition of a pair of engaging pads, as taught by Hanna, for the purpose of providing a further friction fit. The modified Trevino discloses that each of said engaging pads has a front surface (surface of engaging pads in contact with the engaging panels, Hanna) and a back surface (opposite free end surface, Hanna); said front surface of each of said engaging pads is bonded to said first surface of said respective engaging panel (Fig. 1 Hanna) having said front surface of each of said engaging pads covering said first surface of said respective engaging panel (Fig. 1 Hanna); but does not explicitly recite that each of said engaging pads covering completely said first surface of said respective engaging panel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the coverage of the engaging pads on the engaging panels, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and it appears that completely covering the engaging panels with the engaging pads would perform equally as well at providing a friction attachment to a door. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The modified Trevino discloses that each of said engaging pads has a rear edge (free edge closest to where 36 is pointing in fig. 1 of Hanna) being aligned with a back edge (free edge closest to where 36 is pointing in fig. 1 of Hanna) of said respective engaging panel (30 Hanna), but is silent regarding that said rear edge of each of said engaging pads being rounded; and each of said pair of engaging pads is comprised of a resiliently compressible material to enhance gripping the door.
However, in fig. 6 and 20 Kimock teaches that said rear edge of each of said engaging pads being rounded (fig. 20 [0112]); and each of said pair of engaging pads is comprised of a resiliently compressible material (silicone rubber [0050]) to enhance gripping. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Trevino’s pair of engaging pads with rounded edges and a resiliently compressible material, as taught by Kimock, for the purpose of providing an alternate engaging pad structure having the predictable results of frictionally engaging a door. The modified Trevino discloses that the engaging pads having rounded edges inhibit said rear edge of each of said engaging pads from catching on the door (due to the rounded edge, Kimock). The modified Trevino discloses a scratch pad (where 110 is pointing to in fig. 9, Trevino) having a rear surface (surface furthest from 120) being bonded to said front surface of said scratching panel (Fig. 9 Trevino) having said rear surface completely covering said front surface of said scratching panel (Fig. 9, Trevino); said scratch pad has an upper edge (horizontal long edge in fig. 9, Trevino) being aligned with said top side of said perimeter edge of said scratching panel (Fig. 9, Trevino); said scratch pad has a lower edge (horizontal long edge not visible in fig. 9, Trevino) being aligned with said bottom side of said perimeter edge of said scratching panel (Fig. 9, Trevino); and each of said upper edge and said lower edge of said scratch pad is rounded (Fig. 6 and 9 show rounded corners of the upper and lower edges of the scratch pad, Trevino), a plurality of nubs (120 Trevino), each of said plurality of nubs being positioned on said back scratching unit (Fig. 9 Trevino) wherein each of said plurality of nubs is configured to scratch the user's back when the user leans against said back scratching unit (Fig. 10 Trevino), each of said nubs (120 Trevino) has a back end (end connected to 110, Trevino), a front end (opposite free end of 120, Trevino) and an outer surface extending between said front end and said back end (Fig. 5 and 9, Trevino), said back end of each of said nubs being bonded to a forward surface of said scratch pad (Fig. 9 Trevino); said front end of each of said plurality of nubs is rounded (Fig. 5 Trevino); said outer surface of each of said plurality of nubs tapering between said back end and said front end (Fig. 5 Trevino); and said plurality of nubs is arranged in a plurality of columns and rows on a forward surface of said scratch pad ([0027] Trevino).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Berke (7,087,004), Kozlevcar (9,849,065), Kiernan (2019/0307639) and Rhoad et al. (2011/0166481) all directed towards back massage devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1481. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571) 272-5139. 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.
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785