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 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 3 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 3 recites the limitation "the workpiece retainer assembly" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will assume claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 via claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the workpiece retainer assembly" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will assume claim 14 is dependent on claim 13 via claim 11.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “workpiece retainer assembly” in claims 2/13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The examiner will interpret the limitation “workpiece retainer assembly” in claim 3 and 13 as a pair of bracket members 22 defined by a first bracket member 22a (see, e.g., FIG. 2) and a second bracket member 22b (see, e.g., FIG. 3) (Para. [0068] of applicant’s specification). Examiner notes that claims 4 and 14 recite sufficient structure that it does not invoke 35 USC 112(f) interpretation.
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) 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 teaches a crafting apparatus support member that supports a crafting apparatus (“The present disclosure thus provides a table device and a printing apparatus”; Para. [0007]) 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 (Fig. 1 shows the upper surface (12) connected to the lower surface (14) by the connection pieces (30)).
However, Tsuchiya is silent regarding 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.
Shibata teaches a lower surface of the crafting apparatus includes one or more boss-receiving cavities (“FIG. 3 is an explanatory diagram showing the mounting structure of the first support member of the present invention”; Para. [0019] and Fig. 3 shows the 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 (“FIG. 3 is an explanatory diagram showing the mounting structure of the first support member of the present invention”; Para. [0019] and Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to use the mounting structure taught by Shibata to the stand taught by Tsuchiya in order to “reduce[ing] the effects of twisting and vibration of the stand on the main body” (Para. [0015] of Shibata).
Regarding claim 4, Tsuchiya in view of Shibata teaches the crafting apparatus support member of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Tsuchiya further teaches a crafting support apparatus wherein the lower surface of the substantially planar body portion is configured to be supported by a table (Fig. 3 shows the lower surface capable of being supported by a table).
Regarding claim 5, Tsuchiya in view of Shibata teaches the crafting apparatus support member of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Tsuchiya further teaches a crafting support apparatus wherein the side surface of the substantially planar body portion is configured to be connected to a wall (Fig. 3 shows the side surface which could be connected to a wall).
Regarding claim 6, Tsuchiya in view of Shibata teaches the crafting apparatus support member of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Tsuchiya further teaches a crafting support apparatus wherein the lower surface of the substantially planar body portion is configured to be supported by a crafting apparatus support member management sub-assembly (Fig. 3 shows the lower surface capable of being supported by a crafting apparatus support member management sub-assembly).
Regarding claim 7, Tsuchiya in view of Shibata teaches the crafting apparatus support member of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above). Tsuchiya further teaches 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 (Fig. 2 shows a first and second pair of leg assemblies 32 A/B).
Regarding claim 8, Tsuchiya in view of Shibata teaches the crafting apparatus support member of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Tsuchiya further teaches a crafting support apparatus 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 (“If there is a difference in the expansion/contraction operations of the pair of X-shaped link members 30, the coupling member 18 may be subjected to fluctuation that causes tilt in the front-back direction”; Para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 11, Tsuchiya teaches a crafting apparatus assembly comprising: a crafting apparatus support member that supports a crafting apparatus (“The present disclosure thus provides a table device and a printing apparatus”; Para. [0007]) 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 (Fig. 1 shows the upper surface (12) connected to the lower surface (14) by the connection pieces (30)).
However, Tsuchiya is silent regarding one or more crafting apparatus interface portions having a boss portion extending from the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion and
a crafting apparatus supported by the crafting apparatus support member 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 teaches one or more crafting apparatus interface portions having a boss portion extending from the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion (“FIG. 3 is an explanatory diagram showing the mounting structure of the first support member of the present invention”; Para. [0019] and Fig. 3) and
a crafting apparatus supported by the crafting apparatus support member 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 (“FIG. 3 is an explanatory diagram showing the mounting structure of the first support member of the present invention”; Para. [0019] and Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to use the mounting structure taught by Shibata to the stand taught by Tsuchiya in order to “reduce[ing] the effects of twisting and vibration of the stand on the main body” (Para. [0015] of Shibata).
Regarding claim 12, Tsuchiya in view of Shibata teaches the crafting apparatus support member of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above). Tsuchiya further teaches a crafting support apparatus 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 (“If there is a difference in the expansion/contraction operations of the pair of X-shaped link members 30, the coupling member 18 may be subjected to fluctuation that causes tilt in the front-back direction”; Para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 15, Tsuchiya in view of Shibata teaches the crafting apparatus support member of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above). Tsuchiya further teaches a crafting support apparatus wherein the lower surface of the substantially planar body portion is configured to be supported by a table (Fig. 3 shows the lower surface capable of being supported by a table).
Regarding claim 16, Tsuchiya in view of Shibata teaches the crafting apparatus support member of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above). Tsuchiya further teaches a crafting support apparatus wherein the side surface of the substantially planar body portion is configured to be connected to a wall (Fig. 3 shows the side surface which could be connected to a wall).
Regarding claim 17, Tsuchiya in view of Shibata teaches the crafting apparatus support member of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above). Tsuchiya further teaches a crafting support apparatus wherein the lower surface of the substantially planar body portion is configured to be supported by a crafting apparatus support member management sub-assembly (Fig. 3 shows the lower surface capable of being supported by a crafting apparatus support member management sub-assembly).
Regarding claim 18, Tsuchiya in view of Shibata teaches the crafting apparatus support member of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above). Tsuchiya further teaches 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 (Fig. 2 shows a first and second pair of leg assemblies 32A/B).
Claim(s) 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) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Won (KR 101525501).
Regarding claim 2, Tsuchiya in view of Shibata teaches the crafting apparatus support member of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), however, Tsuchiya is silent regarding a workpiece retainer assembly connected to the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion.
Won teaches a workpiece retainer assembly connected to the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion (“To this end, the material holding device (150) may include a support member (160) that is movably installed along the guide frame (130)”; Para. [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to add the material holding device taught by Won to the crafting apparatus support member taught by Tsuchiya in view of Shibata in order to “hold the material” used by the crafting apparatus (Para. [0047] of Won).
Regarding claim 3, Tsuchiya in view of Shibata teaches the crafting apparatus support member of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), however, Tsuchiya is silent regarding a crafting apparatus support member 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 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
Won teaches a 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 (Fig. 3 shows two holding sessions (150) spaced apart by a distance); 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 (Fig. 3 shows two bracket members (152 and 153)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to add the material holding device taught by Won to the crafting apparatus support member taught by Tsuchiya in view of Shibata in order to “hold the material” used by the crafting apparatus (Para. [0047] of Won).
Regarding claim 13, Tsuchiya in view of Shibata teaches the crafting apparatus support member of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), however, Tsuchiya is silent regarding a workpiece retainer assembly connected to the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion.
Won teaches a workpiece retainer assembly connected to the upper surface of the substantially planar body portion (“To this end, the material holding device (150) may include a support member (160) that is movably installed along the guide frame (130)”; Para. [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to add the material holding device taught by Won to the crafting apparatus support member taught by Tsuchiya in view of Shibata in order to “hold the material” used by the crafting apparatus (Para. [0047] of Won).
Regarding claim 14, Tsuchiya in view of Shibata teaches the crafting apparatus support member of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), however, Tsuchiya is silent regarding a crafting apparatus support member 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 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
Won teaches a 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 (Fig. 3 shows two holding sessions (150) spaced apart by a distance); 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 (Fig. 3 shows two bracket members (152 and 153)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to add the material holding device taught by Won to the crafting apparatus support member taught by Tsuchiya in view of Shibata in order to “hold the material” used by the crafting apparatus (Para. [0047] of Won).
Claim(s) 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya (US 20200298599) in view of Shibata (JP 0930194) as applied to claim 7 and 18 above, and further in view of Sides (US 20040032481).
Regarding claim 8, Tsuchiya in view of Shibata teaches the crafting apparatus support member of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), however, Tsuchiya is silent regarding a crafting apparatus support member management sub-assembly includes one or more catch basket assemblies connected to one or both of the first leg assembly and the second leg assembly.
Sides teaches a crafting apparatus support member management sub-assembly includes one or more catch basket assemblies (“In order to ensure that paper is fed expeditiously to the outfeed basket/tray 28”; Para. [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to attach the catch basket taught by Sides to the legs taught by Tsuchiya in order to have a place “for collection and collation” (Para. [0033] of Sides).
Regarding claim 19, Tsuchiya in view of Shibata teaches the crafting apparatus support member of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above), however, Tsuchiya is silent regarding a crafting apparatus support member management sub-assembly includes one or more catch basket assemblies connected to one or both of the first leg assembly and the second leg assembly.
Sides teaches a crafting apparatus support member management sub-assembly includes one or more catch basket assemblies (“In order to ensure that paper is fed expeditiously to the outfeed basket/tray 28”; Para. [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to attach the catch basket taught by Sides to the legs taught by Tsuchiya in order to have a place “for collection and collation” (Para. [0033] of Sides).
Claim(s) 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya (US 20200298599) in view of Shibata (JP 0930194) and Sides (US 20040032481) as applied to claim 8 and 19 above, and further in view of Ginsberg (US 5112020).
Regarding claim 9, Tsuchiya in view of Shibata teaches the crafting apparatus support member of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), however, Tsuchiya is silent regarding one or more catch basket assemblies wherein the one or more catch basket assemblies include a body of anti-static material.
Ginsberg teaches a body of anti-static material (“The keyboard support may be covered with an anti-static material”; Col. 3 lines 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to cover the one or more catch basket assemblies taught by Tsuchiya in view of Shibata and Sides with the static free material taught by Ginsberg in order “to provide a means of dissipating static build-up” (Col. 3 lines 4-5 of Ginsberg).
Regarding claim 20, Tsuchiya in view of Shibata teaches the crafting apparatus support member of claim 19 (see rejection of claim 19 above), however, Tsuchiya is silent regarding one or more catch basket assemblies wherein the one or more catch basket assemblies include a body of anti-static material.
Ginsberg teaches a body of anti-static material (“The keyboard support may be covered with an anti-static material”; Col. 3 lines 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to cover the one or more catch basket assemblies taught by Tsuchiya in view of Shibata and Sides with the static free material taught by Ginsberg in order “to provide a means of dissipating static build-up” (Col. 3 lines 4-5 of Ginsberg).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chieng (US 5080320) teaches an adjustable craft apparatus support stand.
Kim (US 20200391524) teaches a paper cutting device with a large workpiece holder assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER HOWELL TILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6856. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at (571) 270-3818. 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.
/PETER HOWELL TILTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights