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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites “The present utility model discloses”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The use of the term Velcro, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology, (hook and loop type fastener); furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “multiple a plurality of reinforcing strips extend diagonally upwards” from claim 3, the “reinforcing strips are thin curved strips slender L-shaped, or “x” shaped” from claim 4, a reinforcing strip is disposed at the bottom of the curtain body and extends along the length direction of the curtain” from claims 6 and 18, “a plurality of reinforcing strips are spaced vertically and extend along the length direction of the curtain body” from claim 7, “each reinforcing strip is separately covered and fixed on a split structure on the surface of the curtain body, alternatively when the number of wrapping layers is less than that of reinforcing strips, at least a wrapping layer covers and fixes a plurality of reinforcing strips” from claim 10, the Velcro or buckle structure from claim 14, and “a plurality of reinforcing strips extend diagonally upwards from the bottom” from claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following non-limiting informalities:
Claim 1 line 1 recites “for protecting door railing”, but should recite “for protecting a door railing”
Claim 3 lines 1-2 recites “multiple a plurality of reinforcing strips”. It is clear that this is merely requiring the plurality of reinforcing strips introduced in claim 2, but this should be worded as “the plurality of reinforcing strips”.
Claim 3 recites “the bottom” on line 2, but should recite “a bottom”.
Claim 6 recites “the bottom” and “the length” on line 2, but should recite “a bottom” and “a length”.
Claim 10 recites “the surface” on line 3, but should recite “a surface”.
Claim 12 recites “the bottom” on line 2, and “the closing” on line 3. These should recite “a bottom” and “a closing” respectively.
Claim 16 recites “the length”, but should recite “a length”.
Claim 17 recites “the bottom” on line 2, but should recite “a bottom”. Claim 17 also recites “a plurality of reinforcing strips”, but it is clear this is referring to the plurality already introduced in claim 16.
Claim 18 recites “the bottom” on line 2 and the length” on line 3, but should recite “a bottom” and “a length” respectively.
Claim 19 recites “the bottom” on line 2, but should recite “a bottom”.
Appropriate correction is required. It is up to the applicant to find and correct all issues similar to those described above.
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 10-11, and 14 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.
Claim 10 recites “wherein when there are a plurality of reinforcing strips (2), the wrapping layer (3) is an integrated structure that covers and fixes all the reinforcing strips (2) together on the surface of the curtain body (1), alternatively, each reinforcing strip (2) is separately covered and fixed on a split structure on the surface of the curtain body (1), alternatively when the number of wrapping layers (3) is less than that of reinforcing strips (2), at least a wrapping layer (3) covers and fixes a plurality of reinforcing strips (2).” First, it is unclear what is required by the claim. Claim 10 depends from claim 9, and claim 9 allows interpretations that do not include any wrapping layers. Claim 10 also recites that alternately each reinforcing strip may be separately covered and fixed on a split structure, but it is not clear what a split structure is. The specification does not explain what is meant by the term “split structure”.
Claim 14 contains the trademark/trade name Velcro. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a hook and loop type fastener and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Dependent claims are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 9-10, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Britto (US 20020179257).
Regarding claim 1, Britto teaches a protective curtain for protecting door railing, comprising a curtain body (112), wherein the curtain body is provided with at least a reinforcing strip (122) to improve the anti warping property of the curtain (intended use).
Regarding claim 2, Britto teaches, wherein a plurality of reinforcing strips (122, paragraph 21 teaches a plurality) are spaced along the length direction of the curtain body (per fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 3, Britto teaches, wherein that the plurality of reinforcing strips (122, see the claim 3 objection above) extend vertically upwards from a bottom of the curtain body (fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 4, Britto teaches that the reinforcing strips (122) are thin straight strips (fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 5, Britto teaches that the reinforcing strips (122) are made of hard materials (paragraph 21, fiberglass is considered a hard material).
Regarding claim 9, Britto teaches that the reinforcing strips (122) are fixed onto the curtain body (1) through a wrapping layer (paragraph 21 teaches that the cloth barrier itself forms looped holders for the reinforcing strips in paragraph 21, these are considered a wrapping layer).
Regarding claim 10, Britto teaches that there are a plurality of reinforcing strips (122s, paragraph 21 teaches a plurality), the wrapping layer is an integrated structure (paragraph 21) that covers and fixes all the reinforcing strips (122) together on the surface of the curtain body (paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 15, Britto teaches a retractable protective door railing (100), wherein it includes the protective curtain as claimed in claim 1 (fig. 1a and claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 16, Britto teaches, wherein a plurality of reinforcing strips (122, paragraph 21 teaches a plurality) are spaced along the length direction of the curtain body (per fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 17, Britto teaches, wherein that the plurality of reinforcing strips (122, see the claim 17 objection above) extend vertically upwards from a bottom of the curtain body (fig. 1a).
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kilduff (US 20020046522).
Regarding claim 1, Kilduff teaches a protective curtain (fig. 8) for protecting door railing (intended use), comprising a curtain body (38), wherein the curtain body is provided with at least a reinforcing strip (42) to improve the anti warping property of the curtain (intended use).
Regarding claim 6, Kilduff teaches a reinforcing strip (bottom) is disposed at the bottom of the curtain body and extends along the length direction of the curtain body (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Kilduff teaches that a plurality of reinforcing strips (42s, fig. 8) are spaced vertically and extend along the length direction of the curtain body (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Kilduff teaches that the reinforcing strips (42s) are made of metal thin sheets (paragraph 118, aluminum).
Regarding claim 15, Kilduff teaches a retractable protective door railing (as seen in fig. 1, the whole unit is considered a retractable door railing as it is retractable and windows can operate like doors during a fire situation), wherein it includes the protective curtain as claimed in claim 1 (claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 18, Kilduff teaches at least a reinforcing strip is disposed at the bottom of the curtain body and extends along the length direction of the curtain body (fig. 8).
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(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britto (US 20020179257) in view of Glover (US 20220396991).
Regarding claim 11, Britto does not explicitly teach that the wrapping layer is fixed onto the surface of the curtain body through adhesive, screw structure, binding or stitching.
Glover teaches a curtain that contains reinforcing strips (7) fixed onto the curtain body through a wrapping layer that is fixed onto the surface of the curtain body through stitching (described in paragraph 28, the pockets are the wrapping layer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Britto so that the wrapping layer is fixed onto the surface of the curtain body through adhesive, screw structure, binding or stitching. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of providing a secure way of connecting the components, resulting in a more durable device.
Claim(s) 12-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britto (US 20020179257) in view of Elrod (US 20220251902).
Regarding claims 12-14, Britto does not teach wherein a passage is provided near the bottom of the curtain body for pets to enter and exit, and a passage door is provided to control the closing and opening of the passage, wherein the passage door is structurally integrated with or separately from the curtain body, wherein the passage door is connected to the curtain body through a chain structure, Velcro or buckle structure.
Elrod teaches a screen (fig. 7a) with a passage provided (when zippers open) near the bottom of the curtain body (fig. 7a) for pets to enter and exit (intended use), and a passage door (fig. 7a) is provided to control the closing and opening of the passage, wherein the passage door is structurally integrated with the body, wherein the passage door is connected to the body through a chain structure (zipper).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Britto so that there is a passage is provided near the bottom of the curtain body for pets to enter and exit, and a passage door is provided to control the closing and opening of the passage, wherein the passage door is structurally integrated with the curtain body, wherein the passage door is connected to the curtain body through a chain structure. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing pets to enter and exit with opening the entire screen, thus being more user friendly.
Regarding claims 19-20, Britto does not teach that a passage is provided near the bottom of the curtain body for pets to enter and exit, and a passage door is provided to control the closing and opening of the passage, wherein the passage door is structurally integrated with or separately from the curtain body.
Elrod teaches a screen (fig. 7a) with a passage provided (when zippers open) near the bottom of the curtain body (fig. 7a) for pets to enter and exit (intended use), and a passage door (fig. 7a) is provided to control the closing and opening of the passage, wherein the passage door is structurally integrated with the body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Britto so that there is a passage is provided near the bottom of the curtain body for pets to enter and exit, and a passage door is provided to control the closing and opening of the passage, wherein the passage door is structurally integrated with the curtain body. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing pets to enter and exit with opening the entire screen, thus being more user friendly.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britto (US 20020179257) in view of Kilduff (US 20020046522).
Regarding claim 18, Britto does not teach that a reinforcing strip is disposed at the bottom of the curtain body and extends along the length direction of the curtain body.
Kilduff teaches at least a reinforcing strip is disposed at the bottom of the curtain body and extends along the length direction of the curtain body (fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Britto so that it has a reinforcing strip is disposed at the bottom of the curtain body and extends along the length direction of the curtain body. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of further strengthen the device to withstand higher forces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R SHEPHERD whose telephone number is (571)272-5657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Daniel Cahn can be reached on (571) 270-5616. 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.
/M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634