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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3: at lines 3-4, “that a spaced apart” should be amended to read “that are spaced apart” (Examiner notes that at least claim 14 requires similar corrections)
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-7, 10-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya (US 20200298599) in view of Shibata (JP 0930194).
Regarding claim 1, Tsuchiya discloses a crafting apparatus support member that supports a crafting apparatus, the crafting apparatus support member comprising: a substantially planar body portion having an upper surface, a lower surface, and a side surface connecting the upper surface to the lower surface (upper surface 12 is connected to lower surface 14 via connection pieces 30; see fig. 1).
Tsuchiya does not explicitly disclose wherein a lower surface of the crafting apparatus includes one or more boss-receiving cavities, and one or more crafting apparatus interface portions having a boss portion extending from the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion that are configured to be interfaced with the one or more boss-receiving cavities of the crafting apparatus, wherein the boss portion comprises: an upper surface; side surfaces that extend perpendicularly from and connect the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion and the upper surface of the boss portion and a rear side surface that extends from and connects the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion and the upper surface of the boss portion.
Shibata discloses wherein a lower surface of the crafting apparatus includes one or more boss-receiving cavities (boss-receiving cavities are formed in the mounting structure of recording unit 10; see paragraph [0019] and fig. 3), and one or more crafting apparatus interface portions having a boss portion extending from the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion (first support member 51 extends from the upper surface of the planar body; see fig. 3) that are configured to be interfaced with the one or more boss-receiving cavities of the crafting apparatus (first support member 51 interfaces with the boss-receiving cavities formed in the mounting structure of recording unit 10; see paragraph [0019] and fig. 3), wherein the boss portion comprises: an upper surface (top portion of first support member 51; see fig. 3); side surfaces that extend perpendicularly from and connect the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion and the upper surface of the boss portion (first support member 51 includes side surfaces extending perpendicularly from the upper surface of the planar body that connect to the upper surface of first support member 51; see fig. 3) and a rear side surface that extends from and connects the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion and the upper surface of the boss portion (first support member 51 further includes a rear side surface connecting the upper surface of the planar body and upper surface of first support member 51 in the same manner as the side surfaces as discussed above; see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tsuchiya in view of Shibata to include the mounting structure as taught by Shibata. Shibata further discloses that this configuration is capable of reducing the effects of twisting and vibration of the stand on the main body (see paragraph [0015]). Therefore, in order to reduce vibration caused during operation, such a modification would be obvious.
Tsuchiya as modified does not explicitly disclose that the rear side surface extends at a non-perpendicular angle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Tsuchiya to include a non-perpendicular side surface since it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (see In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431). In the instant case, it does not appear that further modifying Tsuchiya to have the recited configuration would impede the device from performing its intended function – that is, the boss (first support member 51) is still capable of supporting and connecting the upper and lower portions. Therefore, such a modification would be obvious since it appears that the specific shape of the boss is mere design choice (see paragraph [0088] of the instant specification, stating that in some configurations, boss 38 may have a cylindrical shape with one side surface slanted, suggesting that this is not required of the boss to function properly).
Regarding claim 4, Tsuchiya as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Tsuchiya as modified further discloses wherein the lower surface of the substantially planar body portion is configured to be supported by a table (the lower surface is capable of being supported by a table; see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Tsuchiya as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Tsuchiya as modified further discloses wherein the side surface of the substantially planar body portion is configured to be connected to a wall (the side surface of the planar body is capable of being connected to a wall; see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Tsuchiya as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Tsuchiya as modified further discloses wherein the lower surface of the substantially planar body portion is configured to be supported by a crafting apparatus support member management sub-assembly (the lower surface is capable of being supported by a support member management subassembly; see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Tsuchiya as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Tsuchiya as modified further discloses wherein the crafting apparatus support member management sub-assembly includes a pair of leg assemblies defined by a first leg assembly and a second leg assembly (first and second long members 32A, 32B form leg assemblies; see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Tsuchiya as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Tsuchiya as modified further discloses wherein the crafting apparatus includes a working surface angle that defines a working three dimensional Cartesian coordinate system, wherein the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion defines a non-working three dimensional Cartesian coordinate system that is angularly offset from the working surface angle of the crafting apparatus (coupling member 18 may be subjected to fluctuation that causes tilt in the front-back direction if X-shaped link members 30 do not expand/contract properly – Examiner interprets that the level orientation forms a working surface angle and the tilted orientation forms a non-working surface angle; see paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 11, Tsuchiya discloses a crafting apparatus assembly comprising: a crafting apparatus support member including: a substantially planar body portion having an upper surface, a lower surface, and a side surface connecting the upper surface to the lower surface (upper surface 12 is connected to lower surface 14 via connection pieces 30; see fig. 1); and a crafting apparatus supported by the crafting apparatus support member (as modified to include a crafting apparatus, the crafting apparatus is supported by the planar body formed by upper surface 12 and lower surface 14; see fig. 1).
Tsuchiya does not explicitly disclose one or more crafting apparatus interface portions having a boss portion extending from the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion, wherein the boss portion comprises: an upper surface; side surfaces that extend perpendicularly from and connect the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion and the upper surface of the boss portion and a rear side surface that extends from and connects the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion and the upper surface of the boss portion; and a crafting apparatus wherein a lower surface of the crafting apparatus include one or more boss-receiving cavities, wherein the boss portion of the one or more crafting apparatus interface portions is configured to be interfaced with the one or more boss-receiving cavities of the crafting apparatus.
Shibata discloses one or more crafting apparatus interface portions having a boss portion extending from the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion (first support member 51 extends from the upper surface of the planar body; see fig. 3), wherein the boss portion comprises: an upper surface (top portion of first support member 51; see fig. 3); side surfaces that extend perpendicularly from and connect the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion and the upper surface of the boss portion (first support member 51 includes side surfaces extending perpendicularly from the upper surface of the planar body that connect to the upper surface of first support member 51; see fig. 3) and a rear side surface that extends from and connects the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion and the upper surface of the boss portion (first support member 51 further includes a rear side surface connecting the upper surface of the planar body and upper surface of first support member 51 in the same manner as the side surfaces as discussed above; see fig. 3); and a crafting apparatus (recording unit 10; see fig. 2) wherein a lower surface of the crafting apparatus include one or more boss-receiving cavities (boss-receiving cavities are formed in the mounting structure; see paragraph [0019] and fig. 3), wherein a lower surface of the crafting apparatus include one or more boss-receiving cavities (boss-receiving cavities are formed in the mounting structure; see paragraph [0019] and fig. 3), wherein the boss portion of the one or more crafting apparatus interface portions is configured to be interfaced with the one or more boss-receiving cavities of the crafting apparatus (first support member 51 interfaces with the boss-receiving cavities formed in the mounting structure of recording unit 10; see paragraph [0019] and fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tsuchiya in view of Shibata to include the mounting structure as taught by Shibata. Shibata further discloses that this configuration is capable of reducing the effects of twisting and vibration of the stand on the main body (see paragraph [0015]). Therefore, in order to reduce vibration caused during operation, such a modification would be obvious.
Tsuchiya as modified does not explicitly disclose that the rear side surface extends at a non-perpendicular angle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Tsuchiya to include a non-perpendicular side surface since it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (see In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431). In the instant case, it does not appear that further modifying Tsuchiya to have the recited configuration would impede the device from performing its intended function – that is, the boss (first support member 51) is still capable of supporting and connecting the upper and lower portions. Therefore, such a modification would be obvious since it appears that the specific shape of the boss is mere design choice (see paragraph [0088] of the instant specification, stating that in some configurations, boss 38 may have a cylindrical shape with one side surface slanted, suggesting that this is not required of the boss to function properly).
Regarding claim 12, Tsuchiya as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Tsuchiya as modified further discloses wherein the crafting apparatus includes a working surface angle that defines a working three dimensional Cartesian coordinate system, wherein the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion defines a non-working three dimensional Cartesian coordinate system that is angularly offset from the working surface angle of the crafting apparatus (coupling member 18 may be subjected to fluctuation that causes tilt in the front-back direction if X-shaped link members 30 do not expand/contract properly – Examiner interprets that the level orientation forms a working surface angle and the tilted orientation forms a non-working surface angle; see paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 15, Tsuchiya as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Tsuchiya as modified further discloses wherein the lower surface of the substantially planar body portion is configured to be supported by a table (the lower surface is capable of being supported by a table; see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Tsuchiya as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Tsuchiya as modified further discloses wherein the side surface of the substantially planar body portion is configured to be connected to a wall (the side surface of the planar body is capable of being connected to a wall; see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Tsuchiya as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Tsuchiya as modified further discloses wherein the lower surface of the substantially planar body portion is configured to be supported by a crafting apparatus support member management sub-assembly (the lower surface is capable of being supported by a support member management subassembly; see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Tsuchiya as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as described in the rejection above.
Tsuchiya as modified further discloses wherein the crafting apparatus support member management sub-assembly includes: a pair of leg assemblies defined by a first leg assembly and a second leg assembly (first and second long members 32A, 32B form leg assemblies; see fig. 2).
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya (US 20200298599) in view of Shibata (JP 0930194), further in view of Won (KR 101525501).
Regarding claim 2, Tsuchiya as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Tsuchiya as modified does not explicitly disclose a workpiece retainer assembly connected to the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion.
Won discloses a workpiece retainer assembly connected to the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion (holding section 150 may include support member 160, which is movably attached to guide frame 130; see paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Tsuchiya in view of Won to include a workpiece retainer assembly connected to the planar body. Won discloses that material holding device 150 is capable of supporting material rotatably (see paragraph [0047]). Therefore, in order to provide a means to support the workpiece, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Tsuchiya as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Won further discloses wherein the workpiece retainer assembly includes: a pair of rod members including by a first rod member and a second rod member that a spaced apart by a distance for forming a workpiece-material-receiving-gap (holding section 150 and side wall 112 are formed with space between them; see fig. 3); and a pair of bracket members that support the pair of rod members away from the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion at a height, wherein the pair of bracket members include a first bracket member and a second bracket member (brackets 152, 153 support holding section 150 at a position away from the upper surface of the planar body; see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Tsuchiya in view of Won to include a workpiece retainer assembly connected to the planar body. Won discloses that material holding device 150 is capable of supporting material rotatably (see paragraph [0047]). Therefore, in order to provide a means to support the workpiece, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Tsuchiya as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Tsuchiya as modified does not explicitly disclose a workpiece retainer assembly connected to the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion.
Won discloses a workpiece retainer assembly connected to the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion (holding section 150 may include support member 160, which is movably attached to guide frame 130; see paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Tsuchiya in view of Won to include a workpiece retainer assembly connected to the planar body. Won discloses that material holding device 150 is capable of supporting material rotatably (see paragraph [0047]). Therefore, in order to provide a means to support the workpiece, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 14, Tsuchiya as modified discloses the limitations of claim 13 as described in the rejection above.
Won further discloses wherein the workpiece retainer assembly includes: a pair of rod members including by a first rod member and a second rod member that a spaced apart by a distance for forming a workpiece-material-receiving-gap (holding section 150 and side wall 112 are formed with space between them; see fig. 3); and a pair of bracket members that support the pair of rod members away from the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion at a height, wherein the pair of bracket members include a first bracket member and a second bracket member (brackets 152, 153 support holding section 150 at a position away from the upper surface of the planar body; see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Tsuchiya in view of Won to include a workpiece retainer assembly connected to the planar body. Won discloses that material holding device 150 is capable of supporting material rotatably (see paragraph [0047]). Therefore, in order to provide a means to support the workpiece, such a modification would be obvious.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya (US 20200298599) in view of Shibata (JP 0930194), further in view of Sides (US 20040032481).
Regarding claim 8, Tsuchiya as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Tsuchiya as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the crafting apparatus support member management sub-assembly includes one or more catch basket assemblies.
Sides discloses wherein the crafting apparatus support member management sub-assembly includes one or more catch basket assemblies (outfeed basket/tray 28 is positioned to collect paper from the printer; see paragraph [0033] and fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Tsuchiya in view of Sides to include a catch basket assembly. Sides discloses a catch basket (outfeed basket/tray 28) which is capable of collecting paper from printer 20 (see paragraph [0033] and fig. 2). Therefore, in order to provide an apparatus for collection of the workpiece, such a modification would be obvious.
Tsuchiya as modified further discloses wherein the one or more catch basket assemblies are connected to one or both of the first leg assembly and the second leg assembly (as modified, the catch basket assembly can be connected to first and/or second long members 32A, 32B).
Regarding claim 19, Tsuchiya as modified discloses the limitations of claim 18 as described in the rejection above.
Tsuchiya as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the crafting apparatus support member management sub-assembly includes one or more catch basket assemblies.
Sides discloses wherein the crafting apparatus support member management sub-assembly includes one or more catch basket assemblies (outfeed basket/tray 28 is positioned to collect paper from the printer; see paragraph [0033] and fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Tsuchiya in view of Sides to include a catch basket assembly. Sides discloses a catch basket (outfeed basket/tray 28) which is capable of collecting paper from printer 20 (see paragraph [0033] and fig. 2). Therefore, in order to provide an apparatus for collection of the workpiece, such a modification would be obvious.
Tsuchiya as modified further discloses wherein the one or more catch basket assemblies are connected to one or both of the first leg assembly and the second leg assembly (as modified, the catch basket assembly can be connected to first and/or second long members 32A, 32B).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya (US 20200298599) in view of Shibata (JP 0930194), in view of Sides (US 20040032481), and further in view of Ginsberg (US 5112020).
Regarding claim 9, Tsuchiya as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Tsuchiya as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more catch basket assemblies include a body of anti-static material.
Ginsberg discloses a body of anti-static material (keyboard supports may be covered with an anti-static material; see col. 3, lines 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Tsuchiya in view of Ginsberg to make the catch basket assemblies from an anti-static material. Ginsberg discloses a support which is covered by an anti-static material to provide a means of dissipating static build-up (see col. 3, lines 3-4). Therefore, in order to provide catch basket assemblies which reduce static build-up, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Tsuchiya as modified discloses the limitations of claim 19 as described in the rejection above.
Tsuchiya as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more catch basket assemblies include a body of anti-static material.
Ginsberg discloses a body of anti-static material (keyboard supports may be covered with an anti-static material; see col. 3, lines 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Tsuchiya in view of Ginsberg to make the catch basket assemblies from an anti-static material. Ginsberg discloses a support which is covered by an anti-static material to provide a means of dissipating static build-up (see col. 3, lines 3-4). Therefore, in order to provide catch basket assemblies which reduce static build-up, such a modification would be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights