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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 and 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the aforementioned claims set forth a series of physical structures/configurations that are well beyond that which is disclosed within the Marinov reference (discussed in greater depth infra), which is the prior art closest to Applicant’s claimed invention, and there would be no obvious reason to modify Marinov to the extent necessary to satisfy each of Applicant’s pertinent limitations.
With respect to claim 12 (and claim 13 depending therefrom), the provision of grooves on a surface is well known, but providing such a groove in Marinov’s cap 20 arranged to receive and hold the first translucent member 14 therein would interfere with the ability of the annular openings 84, 86 and 88 to permit unobstructed air flow in the manner discussed at col. 4, lines 63-67.
With respect to claim 21, the provision of a light source powered by an electrochemical primary cell, electrochemical secondary cell, fuel cell, or arrangement of supercapacitors is similarly well known, but the Marinov reference specifically calls for the use of an electric light bulb, along with its electric motor, both powered by the same electric cord extending from electric drive motor 48, as shown in fig. If one were to modify the light source to any of the aforementioned alternative options, then a secondary power source would need to be supplied to the Marinov decorative device 10, which would be redundant in view of the cord that is already present.
With respect to claim 22 (and claim 23 depending therefrom), the provision of perfusor™ materials is known, but there is no guarantee that such a material would perform well in the specific high temperature environment that will be present within the Marinov decorative device 10. However, see the pertinent rejection under 35 USC 112 set forth infra.
In view of the foregoing, the modifications necessary to satisfy each of Applicant’s claim limitations would be likely to render the Marinov assembly incapable of continuing to operate/behave in the particular manner set forth within the reference itself (given the particularly sensitive nature of such electronic powered display device assemblies), which would be strongly indicative of an application of improper hindsight reasoning.
Claims 12-13 and 21-23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include all reference numerals mentioned in the description, particularly with regard to figures 1-3, 6b, 7-9, 11-13, 14a-b and 19. 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. 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
Claims 1-9, 11-28 are objected to because of the following informalities: the aforementioned claims contain a plurality of capitalized words. Note that each claim should simply contain one capitalized word, located at its beginning. 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 1-28 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.
The claim 1 recitation of “an elongated housing an outer hollow body” is unclear. Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Does Applicant actually intend to recite “an elongated housing having an outer hollow body”? Please review/revise/clarify.
The claim 5 recitation of “the inner hollow body are each formed out of…” is unclear, as it is unknown whether the “inner hollow body” should be one element, or a plurality of elements. Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "both sides". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 contains a period following the recitation of “opal white glass”. Should this be a comma, or should this be recognized as the end of the claim? Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
The claim 8 recitation of “[t]he frame of claim 7, the motif-bearing translucent materials include…” is unclear. Does Applicant actually intend to recite “…wherein the motif-bearing translucent materials include…”? Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
Regarding claims 9-11, 13 and 24-25, the phrases "particularly preferably", “most preferably”, “preferably” and “preferred” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are absolutely essential parts the claimed invention. Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
The claim 16 recitation of “by means capable of being lifted or unscrewed” is unclear. Precisely which item (e.g. the recited lid, inner hollow body or “means”) is to be lifted or unscrewed? Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
Claims 22-23 contain the trademark/trade name “perfusor”. 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 film, but note that “perfusor” exists as live trademark serial no. 75099004. Accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 12, 14-15, 17-21 and 26-28 are rejected as depending (directly or indirectly) from rejected independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-8 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,685,097 to Marinov (“Marinov”).
Regarding claim 1, Marinov anticipates an illuminated (written abstract) cylindrical (figs. 1-2), elliptical or prismatic interchangeable (fig. 2 and col. 5, lines 5-11) frame (e.g. decorative device 10, as shown in figs. 1-2) for one or more motif-bearing (fig. 2) translucent materials (e.g. second translucent member 16, as shown in fig. 2), comprising: i) an elongated housing (e.g. overall structure shown in figs. 1-2) an outer hollow body (e.g. third translucent member 18, as shown in figs. 1-2) and an inner hollow body (e.g. first translucent member 14, as shown in fig. 2) has translucent walls (col. 2, line 65) having a round, elliptical, or prismatic cross-section (fig. 2), the outer hollow body (18) being closed (fig. 1) at one end (e.g. lower end, as shown in fig. 1) by a base plate (e.g. base 12, as shown in figs. 1-2) and at an opposite end (e.g. upper end, as shown in figs. 1-2) by a lid (e.g. cap 20, as shown in figs. 1-2); and ii) one or more electric light sources (e.g. electrical lamp socket 80, as shown in fig. 2) within (fig. 2) the housing (aforementioned overall structure shown in figs. 1-2), wherein, between (fig. 2) the light source (80) or the light sources and the motif-bearing translucent materials (16), the inner hollow body (14) is open and having a round, elliptical or prismatic cross-section (fig. 2), wherein the inner hollow body (14) is fixated by a circumferential groove or fold in the lid and or in the base plate, or on (fig. 4) a pedestal (e.g. first turntable 68, as shown in fig. 4 and discussed at col. 4, lines 10-11), and wherein a gap (e.g. spacing, as shown in fig. 4) is provided between (figs. 2 and 4) the inner and outer hollow bodies (14 and 18, respectively) for accommodating (figs. 2 and 4) the translucent materials (16).
Regarding claim 2, Marinov anticipates the frame of claim 1, wherein the gap (aforementioned spacing) between the inner and outer hollow bodies (14 and 18, respectively) houses (figs. 2 and 4) the motif-bearing translucent materials (16) or images.
Regarding claim 3, Marinov anticipates the frame of claim 2, wherein the motif-bearing translucent materials (16) stand freely spaced apart in (fig. 4) the gap (aforementioned spacing), or are held in place by a groove in the base plate or lid, wherein, the lid or base plate has multiple grooves.
Regarding claim 4, Marinov anticipates the frame of claim 1, wherein the motif-bearing translucent materials (16) comprise translucent materials (e.g. translucent color patterns, as discussed at col. 3, lines 14-15) or transparent materials that are arranged one behind the other (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Marinov anticipates the frame of claim 1, wherein the inner hollow body (14) are each formed out of one or more materials selected from the group consisting of glass or plastic (col. 3, lines 10-13), with a matted surface on one or both sides, satin white acrylic glass, opal acrylic glass, satin acrylic glass, satin glass, opal white glass, pearled acrylic glass and Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (see the rejection under 35 USC 112 set forth supra).
Regarding claim 6, Marinov anticipates the frame of claim 1, wherein the inner hollow body (14) comprises a light-scattering film (col. 3, lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 7, Marinov anticipates the frame of claim 1, wherein the motif-bearing translucent materials (16) include a fabric selected from the group consisting of: a flexible flat material, paper, parchment paper, photo paper, plastic (col. 3, lines 10-13), perforated metal foil, and fabric made of natural or synthetic fibers.
Regarding claim 8, Marinov anticipates the frame of claim 7, the motif-bearing translucent materials (16) include a printable plastic film (col. 3, lines 10-13) selected from the group consisting of PET, polyethylene terephthalate, polypropylene, and polyethylene, the plastic film being crystal clear (col. 2, lines 23-25), white-matte translucent or matte-translucent and being coated for printing.
Regarding claim 14, Marinov anticipates the frame of claim 1, wherein the frame (10) is configured for presentation (figs. 1-2) of one or more of : photographs, printed products, paintings (col. 3, lines 18-19) and works of art.
Regarding claim 15, Marinov anticipates the frame of claim 14, configured such that the presentation (figs. 1-2) is accessible by removing (col. 5, lines 1-4) the lid (20) by hand (note that the instant claim is drawn to a frame- not a method of operating such).
Regarding claim 16, Marinov anticipates the frame of claim 1, wherein the lid (20) is configured to allow separating from (col. 5, lines 1-4) the inner hollow body (14) by means capable of being lifted (col. 5, lines 1-4) or unscrewed, or by a locking mechanism.
Regarding claim 17, Marinov anticipates the frame of claim 16, wherein the lid (20) is configured such that the inner hollow body (14) and the outer hollow body (18) are separated (figs. 2 and 4) when the lid (20) is lifted (col. 5, lines 1-4) or unscrewed.
Regarding claim 18, Marinov anticipates the frame of claim 1, wherein the frame (10) is configured for use any of: living spaces, galleries, museums, medical practices, clinics, law firms, hotels, cafes, representative reception rooms, exhibitions, trade shows, and in advertising for the presentation of photographs, printed products, paintings (col. 3, lines 18-19) and artworks.
Regarding claim 19, Marinov anticipates the frame of claim 1, configured to be rotatable or to be located on a turntable (e.g. first turntable 68 and second turntable 74, as shown in fig. 4), so as to allow rotation to be carried out manually or electrically (col. 4, lines 6-9), via wireless or wired (fig. 4; note the wire extending from the bottom of electric drive motor 48) control.
Regarding claim 20, Marinov anticipates the frame of claim 1, wherein light sources (80) provide axial lighting (fig. 2) providing a total beam angle of 330 degrees to 360 degrees (fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 9-11 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinov.
Regarding claim 9, Marinov discloses the frame of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the motif-bearing translucent materials (16) each have a thickness of 50 to 500 micrometers, particularly preferably 75 to 250 micrometers, most preferably 5 to 175 micrometers.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant matter, the particular chosen thickness of the second translucent member 16 will determine the ultimate aesthetic appearance of the decorative device 10 that is presented to an ostensible user.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second translucent member 16 with a thickness as desired, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant desired aesthetic appearance.
Regarding claim 10, Marinov discloses the frame of claim 7, but does not disclose wherein the fabric (col. 3, lines 10-13) has a surface weight of 200 to 500 grams per square meter, and particularly preferably from 280 to 380 grams per square meter.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant matter, the particular chosen surface weight of the plastic discussed at col. 3, lines 10-13 will determine the ultimate aesthetic appearance of the decorative device 10 that is presented to an ostensible user.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pertinent plastic material with a surface weight as desired, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant desired aesthetic appearance.
Regarding claim 11, Marinov discloses the frame of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the outer hollow body (18) has a cross-sectional diameter between 11.4 cm and 105 cm, and wherein the inner hollow body has a diameter between 10 cm and 100 cm, preferably between 20 and 80 cm.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant matter, the particular chosen cross-sectional diameter of the third translucent member 18 will determine the ultimate aesthetic appearance of the decorative device 10 that is presented to an ostensible user.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the third translucent member 18 with a cross-sectional diameter as desired, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant desired aesthetic appearance.
Regarding claim 24, Marinov discloses the frame of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the inner and outer hollow bodies (14 and 18, respectively) each have a length between 10 cm and 250 cm, preferably between 20 cm and 220 cm, and particularly preferably between 30 cm and 190 cm.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant matter, the particular chosen lengths of first translucent member 14 and third translucent member 18 will determine the ultimate aesthetic appearance of the decorative device 10 that is presented to an ostensible user.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide such lengths as desired, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant desired aesthetic appearance.
Regarding claim 25, Marinov discloses the frame of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the inner hollow body (14) and the outer hollow body (18) are separated between 2 mm and 400 mm, preferably 2 mm and 200 mm, and particularly preferably between 2 mm and 50 mm.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant matter, the particular chosen separation distance will determine the ultimate aesthetic appearance of the decorative device 10 that is presented to an ostensible user.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide such a separation distance as desired, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant desired aesthetic appearance.
Regarding claim 26, Marinov discloses the frame of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the inner hollow body (14) and the outer hollow body (18) each have wall thickness between 2 mm and 20 mm.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant matter, the particular chosen thicknesses of first translucent member 14 and third translucent member 18 will determine the ultimate aesthetic appearance of the decorative device 10 that is presented to an ostensible user.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide such thicknesses as desired, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant desired aesthetic appearance.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinov in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0135586 to Yang (“Yang”).
Regarding claim 27, Marinov discloses the frame of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein an inner surface of the inner hollow body (14) is lined with LED diodes.
Yang teaches the concept of providing an inner surface (e.g. inner spatial portion, as shown in fig. 2) of a hollow body (aqua-lamp base 4, as shown in figs. 1-2 and discussed at para. 15) being lined with (compare figs. 1-2) LED diodes (e.g. light generation assembly 3, as shown in figs. 1-2 and discussed at para. 14).
Given that Marinov and Yang both concern inner-illuminated tubular lamp assemblies, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Marinov base 12 with Yang LEDs 3 around the inner circular perimeter of first translucent member 14, in order to provide the benefit of yielding an overall better illuminated Marinov assembly.
Regarding claim 28, Marinov discloses the frame of Claim 1, wherein the inner hollow body (14) has a gridded surface (fig. 2) made of polyacrylic glass (PMMA) (per col. 3, lines 10-13, plastics can be utilized as desired).
Marinov does not disclose the frame (10) further comprising LEDs provided at an edge of the inner hollow body (14), at the base plate (12), the pedestal or at the lid (20).
Yang teaches the concept of providing LEDs (e.g. light generation assembly 3, as shown in figs. 1-2 and discussed at para. 14) at an edge (compare figs. 1-2) a hollow body (aqua-lamp base 4, as shown in figs. 1-2 and discussed at para. 15), at a base plate (e.g. stand 1, as shown in figs. 1-2).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 27, supra, it would have been obvious to provide the Marinov base 12 with Yang LEDs 3 around the inner circular perimeter of first translucent member 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN V LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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 J. Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. 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.
/JUSTIN V LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637