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.
Claim 12 is 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 recites “a tension rod” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the tension rod recited in the claim is one of the two recited in Claim 1 or a third, independent tension rod. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be treated as referring to one of the tension rods recited in 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beedle et al. in US Patent 10030407.
Regarding Claim 1, Beedle teaches a multifunctional decorative element, formed by a support structure (140/150), at least two tension rods (162), two spaced-apart receptacles (180/182), and a sheet element (160), wherein the receptacles are formed as part of the support structure and/or are arranged thereon, the at least two tension rods are longer than the spacing between the two spaced-apart receptacles, the receptacles are formed to receive the at least two tension rods, the at least two tension rods are connected to the sheet element, and the sheet element is tentered in a planar manner by the arrangement of the at least two tension rods in the receptacles.
Regarding Claim 2, Beedle teaches (see Fig. 3) that the receptacles are each formed at at least one angle relative to the support structure, which specifies the orientation of the at least two tension rods.
Regarding Claim 4, Beedle teaches that the receptacles are movably mounted (about 170).
Regarding Claim 5, Beedle teaches that the length of the at least two tension rods determines the spreading of the sheet element.
Regarding Claim 6, Beedle teaches that the support structure forms a hyperbolic axis for the decorative element and/or the sheet element forms a hyperbolic paraboloid surface between the receptacles and the highest points of two tension rods (See Figs. 2-3) .
Regarding Claim 8, Beedle teaches that the sheet element is formed by a textile material, in particular canvas, or a film (“mylar”).
Regarding Claim 10, Beedle teaches that the sheet element is designed to be reinforced by a cap for encasing at least one of the receptacles, by bushings for the at least two tension rods and/or the support structure, and/or in the region of fastening regions (see Fig. 3A) and/or connection regions.
Regarding Claim 11, Beedle teaches that the support structure is a rod, a preformed rod, a tube, a preformed tube, an assembled rod, an assembled preformed rod, an assembled tube, an assembled preformed tube, and/or a structure formed by at least two rods (140/150) and/or tubes.
Regarding Claim 12, Beedle teaches that a tension rod is formed by a fiberglass reinforced plastics material (“fiberglass,” see Column 6, line 35).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiang in US Patent 7896014.
Regarding Claim 1, Chiang teaches a multifunctional decorative element, formed by a support structure , at least two tension rods (35), two spaced-apart receptacles (32/33), and a sheet element (36), wherein the receptacles are formed as part of the support structure and/or are arranged thereon, the at least two tension rods are longer than the spacing between the two spaced-apart receptacles, the receptacles are formed to receive the at least two tension rods, the at least two tension rods are connected to the sheet element, and the sheet element is tentered in a planar manner by the arrangement of the at least two tension rods in the receptacles.
Regarding Claim 2, Chiang teaches that the receptacles are each formed at at least one angle relative to the support structure, which specifies the orientation of the at least two tension rods.
Regarding Claim 3, Chiang teaches that the at least one angle is adjustable (See Figs. 11-12).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beedle as applied to Claim 1 in view of Yang in US Patent 7316239. Beedle is silent on the means used to anchor the sheet element. Yang teaches a decorative element including a sheet element (3) and a pair of receptacles (5), wherein the sheet element is to be guyed against the receptacles, in particular by means of at least one rope and one corresponding tension screw and/or by means of at least one rope (92) and one corresponding eye (within 512), wherein the at least one rope is part of the sheet element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Beedle by using a rope and eye to anchor the sheet element as taught by Yan gin order to securely attach the sheet element.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beedle, as applied to Claim 1 above in view of Grey in US Patent 6055999. Beedle is silent on the means to connect the sheet element and tension rods. Grey teaches a sheet element (20) connected to tension rods (25) the sheet element is fastened to the at least two tension rods by means of a hook-and-loop fastener (60) and/or snap fasteners. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Beedle by using a hook-and-loop fastener as taught by Grey in order to provide a means for easily replacing the sheet when it is damaged.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moss, Moro, Kowalski, Hill, SR., Kent, JR., Scott, Mydans, and Huddle teach tentered elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH C. HAWK whose telephone number is (571)272-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5:30pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
NOAH C. HAWK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Noah Chandler Hawk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636